Wilderness: public meetings (I)

t
Honorable Ceqil Andrus
Honorable Larry Craig
Honorable Dirk Kempthorne
Honorable Larry LaRocco
Honorable Mike Crapo
July 2, 1993
Rsc1211/12D
!Ut 9f99J
~~e~
Poeu, d' A/en~ t:J LaROcco
' ""~IO BJo,
4
Re: Idaho Timber Supply Issues - Task Force Report
Gentlemen:
First, please let us take this opportunity to thank you for
recognizing the need for a solution to the economic and
environmental crisis relative to the timber resource,· and
deciding to make a concerted effort ~o ~olve that crisis.
It· is truly .. an example of statesmanship over politics. We
are certain that the Idaho public is quite appreciative of
your efforts.
The undersigned consist of local~y elected and appointed
officials and timber resource 'experts residing in Boundary
County, Idaho. We have had an opportunity to review the May
24, 1993 Idaho Timber Supp~y Issues Task Force report
entitled "Statutory Prescriptive Language for Idaho W~lder­ness
Legisla-tion". We ·-- respectfu·liy request that: 'you con­sider
the following suggestions.
The people of Boundary Cou~ty believe that no wilderness
areas should be established in Boundary Cou*ty except for
the Salmo-Priest area West of the wild and scenic river
corridor of the Priest River. (Long Canyon sqould be a
special management area for backpacking trail connection
from the Kootenai River to the Selkirk-Crest while providing
other uses running the· gamut of all multiple uses.
.. '• ..
~
t
' !
' l,.
'
i·
1
L
J;~
t ,;.,
t ~
I
!
!· I
1
I
i ·1
i
i
r
f i
t ~-
I ·1
t:
i
Page 2
July 2, 1993
TASK FORCE REPORT:
1. "GENERIC SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA PRESCRIPTIONS"
A & B. We have grave concern with the phrase "in
accordance with applicable laws, rules and regulations
applicable to the State of Idaho and the National Forest
System, including the goals, objectives, and standards in
the appropriate For'e:S't Plan." We believe the phraseology
will, in effect, make any legislation meaningless. We urge
.that the Bill have priority over existing laws, regu],ations,
etc. except for limited, stated specific exceptions.
C & D. We note the report calls
would like to suggest the addition
entitled "Community Stability/Community
Economic Preservation":
"Management Objective• options:
phasis for the (area name) shall be:
for categories. We
of another cat~gory
Custom, Culture and
The management em-
"to provide means to maintain the existing com­munity
economic stability of localities within the
Ranger District"
* "to protect the custom and culture of the
people residing within the Ranger District"
* "to maintain, at not less than the current
level, in lieu of tax funds and other federal
funding"
* "to provide maximum public use"
* "to provide for management so as to provide for
sustainable growth and yield, and the production
of commercially valuable wood products on lands
suitable for timber production to ensure economic
preservation."
.'1
,.· '
t,
%:.
:'
"
.,,
l
I
)
t
! I
I
r
I
Page 3
July 2, 1993
•prescription• options: In meeting the provisions of this
paragraph, the Secretary shall:
* "Provide minimal habitat for threatened and
endangered species to the extent required form
time to time by action taken under the specific
provisions of the Endangered Species Act. Pro­vided
that the endangered species act shall not
apply if the specie is not in danger pf ex~inction
worldwide; and, provided recovery pl:ans will not
be implemented unless they provige no economic
loss to the local communities."
* Regularly consult with elected officials of
government subdivisions in the county in which the
management area is located in regard to:
1. Implementation of programs to carry out the
management objectives; and,
2. Providing documentation that the management
objectives have not been changed by regula­tions,
rules and/or redefinition of termino­logy
E. We suggest that the following proposals be added to
each of the nine categories listed under "Generic Prescrip­tions":
1. Add to "Management Objective" options:
"to provide means to maintain the existing com­munity
economic stability of. localities within the
Ranger District" ..
* "to protect the custom.and culture of the
people residing within the Ranger District"
* "to maintain, at not less than the current
level, in lieu of tax funds and other federal
funding"
.....
''i
Page 4
July 2, 1993
* "to provide maximum general public use"·
* "to provide for management so as to provide for
sustainable growth and yield, and the production
of commercially valuable wood products on lands
suitable for timber production."
2. Add to "Prescription" Options:
* "Provide minimal habitat for threatened and
endangered species to the extent required form
time to time by a.ction taken under the specific
provisions of the Endangered Species Act. Pro­vided
that the endangered spec.ies act shall not
apply if the specie is not in danger·of extinction
worldwide; and, provided recovery plans will not
be implemented unless they provide no economic
loss to the local cornnunities, or
* Regularly consult with elected officials of
government subdivisions in the county in which the
management area is located in regard to:
1. Implementation .of programs to carry out the
management objectives; and,
2. Providing documentation that the man~gement
objectives have not been changed by regula­tions,
rules and/or redefinition of termino­logy
F. We suggest that the following proposals. be added to
category Its· - II Unro'aded Recreations II :
1. "Management Objective" Options:
•
* "to provide winter snowmobile use"
* "to allow the use of machinery in emergency
situations to control'fire and insect "infestation" ·.
Page 5
July 2, 1993
yours,
Ron Smi h, C irman
Boundary County Board of
Commissioners
W-I Forest Products
cc: Norm Arsenault
Steve judy
Jeff Bell
Andy Brunelle
Stephen P. Mealy
Mike King
Jerry Conley
Doug Tims
Joe Hinson
Dennis Baird
Stan Hamilton
•
Sims, ayor
City of Bonners Ferry
~JldleUJ
Randall W. Day, Boundary
County Prosecutor
Peter B. Wilson, Bonners
Ferry City Attorney
Opening:
Statement of
the Honorable Larry LaRocco
Idaho Wilderness Town Meetings
December 14-16, 1992
I want to thank everyone in attendance -- especi~lly those
who have traveled from out of town -- for taking time on a cold
night to participate in this forum on an issue Idahoans would
like to have settled -- how to manage Idaho's remaining 9 million
acres of roadless lands. For a dozen years this has remained
Idaho's most important unresolved natural resources issue.
Reason for having town meetings:
This is the first of four town meetings I will be holding
this week across Idaho to solicit recommendations from the public
on how best to proceed. More town meetings may be scheduled. As
with my other town meetings, my first step is to hear from the
people of Idaho. I am here to listen for new ideas -- new ways
to resolve this issue. I believe that, from the very start, the
process should be open to Idahoans who are directly affected by
the lands around them. I would also like to share some of my own
ideas and concerns about management of Idaho's roadless areas.
How town meeting will proceed:
This is how I would like to proceed tonight. I have
assembled knowledgeable people from state and federal resource
agencies who will provide a history of the roadless lands issue
in Idaho as a framework for tonight's meeting. Each agency will
take no more than 15 minutes to give a brief overview before we
hear from citizens. The panel members will then be available to
answer questions that arise from testimony throughout the
evening.
First, Dave Wright, Supervisor of the Panhandle National
Forest and Win Green, Supervisor of the Clearwater National
Forest will present a quick view of the history of Idaho's
roadless lands and help us visualize past wilderness proposals.
Then, Roy Heberger, Assistant Field Supervisor of the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service Idaho Field Office and Dave Ortmann,
Regional Supervisor for Idaho Fish and Game will speak to the
issue of wildlife habitat and their agency's role.
I would also like to recognize Ted Graf, Natural Resource
Specialist for the Bureau of Land Management, who is in the
audience and available to answer any questions about lands
managed by the Bureau. I would like to introduGe my staff, too.
Jeff and Kristi Bell of the Coeur d'Alene District Office,
Charley Mosier of my Lewiston office, Robin Hartmann of my
Washington staff, as well as Joe Zimmer, a consultant whose
skills in natural resource and conflict resolution will help keep
this process moving. I want to extend my appreciate to Norm
Arseneau and Missy Guisto of Senator Craig's staff for attending
these town meetings. And would like to thank North Idaho College
for providing this room and CableVision for their coverage of
this meeting.
Following the agencies' presentations, I will call on
citizens from the audience who have signed cards as they entered
tonight, and will try to begin with people who are here
representing groups and those who are from out of town and have a
long distance to drive tonight.
Anyone who would like to step up to the microphone will be
given two to three minutes for verbal comments. I will stay as
long as anyone wants to speak. I would also like to encourage
you to put your ideas into writing and send them to my office as
a supplement to, or in substitution for oral testimony.
And finally, I want to clarify that this is not a numbers
game. We will not be keeping track of the number of those
testifying one way or another. My hope is that we will hear many
different viewpoints and new ideas.
Why address this issue:
Idaho has over 12 million acres of roadless National Forest
land, more than any state but Alaska. From 1964 to 1980, the
allocation of some 4 million acres, or 30 percent of it, was
settled. In five separate bills, Congress designated five
wilderness areas: the Selway-Bitterroot, Hells Canyon, Sawtooth,
Gospel-Hump, and the Frank Church River of No Return. My former
boss, the late Senator Frank Church sought a consensus for each
area which was then enacted into law.
When I decided to work on the roadless lands issue during
the 103rd Congress, many people asked, "Why?". There are a
number of reasons, but utmost in my mind is that Idahoans deserve
certainty, stability and sustainability when it comes to
management of our nation's forests, and I believe resolving the
roadless lands issue will take us a big step toward that
certainty.
I think it is important that the students attending High
School in St. Maries know if jobs will be available in the forest
industry. And that recreators from Moscow know with certainty
that their favorite wild places will be there to visit. And that
residents of Coeur d'Alene are assured of the water quality in
their streams and lakes.
The indecision on the roadless area question is unfair to
the many timber communities in Idaho, to the industries in the
state including timber, tourism and outfitting.
Today, when many people are questioning whether Idaho's
national forests can simultaneously·meet timber targets while
obeying environmental laws, we clearly need a decision on Idaho's
roadless lands.
Furthermore, I believe there is a real need for Idaho
leadership on the roadless issue in Washington D.C. Although
many Americans enjoy the federal lands in our great State, we do
not want a Senator from Arkansas or a representative from
Pennsylvania writing Idaho's wilderness bill, but that is likely
what we will get unless Idahoans get back in the game. As the
national interest builds in management of Idaho's wild lands, the
debate will shift more and more to Congress unless Idahoans are
able to work for a compromise.
LL's thoughts on addressing this issue:
As I work for a r~solution to this issue, I want to keep
options open, and I plan to consult widely. But, at the outset,
there are some ideas I would like to share with you:
I believe we are not going to have "just" a wilderness bill
in Idaho. It will have to be a wilderness and forest management
bill. With hard work and good luck it should be possible to
craft a bill that makes sound ecological and economic sense.
I believe one of the keys to a successful bill lies in new
ideas, and throughout these town meetings I will be keeping my
ears open for suggestions on innovative management designations
and measures to help overall forest productivity.
I believe acreage is not the place to start. By talking
acres, we are just asking for polarization.
I believe we need to keep a balance. I personally know and
value many wild places in Idaho, but I have never made a secret
of my view that an Idaho with full employment is a better place
than with high unemployment. If jobs are assured and the lines
make decent sense on the ground, I believe we can make this fly.
Past efforts:
I realize there have been many commendable attempts during
the last decade to solve the roadless issue in Idaho. Although
some have been discouraged by the lack of resolution, I want to
keep working for a solution. After all, even the original
wilderness bill took eight years to emerge from Congress.
The first wilderness bill was introduced in 1956 by Senator
Hubert Humphery and nine other senators, including my former boss
and mentor, the late Senator Frank Church. At that time, both
Forest Service and the National Park Service opposed the
legislation. The Forest Service argued it was not urgently
needed. During the following eight years, 65 different wilderness
bills were introduced, and 18 hearings were held across the
nation. But because of the tenacity of those who believed in the
goal, in the end, the House passed the final version 373 to one;
the Senate, by a margin of 73 to 12.
I believe much work has already been accomplished through
past efforts to resolve the fate of the 9.3 million roadless
acres in Idaho's national forests.
building a fair wilderness package
four past efforts.
Forest Plans:
As I see it, information for
is available from at least
First, each national forest in Idaho has a completed forest
plan, which includes maps and descriptions for wilderness
recommendations. Altho4gh these recommendations were made a few
years ago, they were developed with public participation and
could be a good place to start current discussion.
Andrus/McClure:
Second, much could be learned from the compromise wilderness
bill developed by Governor Cecil Andrus and former Senator James
McClure. Although not successful, the Andrus/McClure effort
started a tradition of bipartisanship for resolving Idaho land
use issues that should remain the goal for future efforts.
Idaho Wilderness Act:
Third, in 1987, and again in 1989, the Idaho Wilderness Act
was introduced as a four-million-acre package for Idaho, which
was endorsed by the Idaho conservation community.
Mediation effort:
And fourth, the State-funded wilderness mediation effort,
even though npt ultimately successful, laid some groundwork for
resolving this issue. Idahoans worked together for nearly two
years to understand each others needs and to look for areas of
agreement. Now we need to build on those efforts with
legislation that provides some certainty for all interests.
Conclusion:
I look forward to hearing new ideas tonight and to working
with Idahoans in the upcoming months to make this a good bill for
our State. With your help I will be able to gather public
comment this month, and hit the ground running in the 103rd
Congress.
The clock is ticking toward the end of March when I have
promised to introduce legislation. I stand ready to make this my
top priority in 1993, and plan to get on the ground to visit the
areas we hear about tonight and hold a Congressional field
hearings in Idaho.
To bring certainty, stability and sustainability to our
Idaho communities will require cooperation and compromise.
Idaho's citizens and Congressional delegation must pull together
if we are to succeed. I believe Idahoan's would like to see the
roadless issue settled. I welcome your support in this goal.
WILDERNESS AND ROADLESS LANDS
Chronology of Events
Administrative actions:
1926 Kneipp inventory. Forest Service begins appraising the
extent of wilderness remaining on national forests
through a national inventory of all areas greater than
230,400 acres.
1927
1929
1939
Chief of Forest Service announces plans to prohibit
road building and other commercial development that
would impair the character of an area that otherwise
possessed wilderness quality.
L-20 Regulations promulgated by the Forest Service.
The first systematic program of wilderness
preservation, intended as interim protection, which
listed permitted and prohibited uses. There were 72
primitive areas totalling 13,482,421 acres in 10
~estern states. Management plans allowed road
construction in 15 areas, grazing in 62, logging in 59.
Only four primitive areas totaling 297,221 acres
absolutely excluded logging, grazing, and roads.
U-Regulations promulgated by Forest Service due to
·dissatisfaction with looseness of the L-20 Regulations.
Intended as permanent protection. Three land use
designations were recognized: U-1 established
wilderness areas - tracts of land not less than 100,000
acres. Only the Secretary of Agriculture could
designate, modify or eliminate wilderness areas. U-2
established wild areas - tracts of land between 5,000
and 100,00 acres. Could be established, modified or
eliminated by Chief of the Forest Service. Both U-1 and
U-2 Regulations prohibited timber cutting, road
construction, and mechanized access. Grazing, water
resource development, and mining were allowed. U-3
established roadless areas where timber cutting, roads,
and other modifications were permissible if provide for
in area management plans. Areas greater than 100,000
acres could be established and modified'by the
Secretary of Agriculture; less than 100,000 acres
established and modified by Chief of the Forest
Service.
Legislative actions:
1956 Introduction of first wilderness bill by Hubert
Humphery and nine other Senators including the
Honorable Frank Church of Idaho.
1960 Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act enacted. Stated that,
"the establishment and maintenance of areas of
wilderness are consistent with the purpose and
provisions of this act." Also defined multiple-uses as
allowing "that some land will be used for less than all
the resources."
1964 Wilderness Act enacted -- Created the National
Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS), defined
wilderness, includ~d administratively designated Forest
Service wilderness, wild and canoe areas as instant
wilderness, established criteria for adding to the
system, provided general guidelines on how to manage
wilderness and reserved to Congress the authority to
classify new wilderness into the NWPS. Instructed
Secretary of Agriculture to, within 10 years review all
USFS primitive areas for their suitability as
wilderness and make report of findings to president.
1970
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1976
1977
Established wilqerness established in Idaho:
Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness, 1,239,840 acres in ID/MT.
Establishment of Craters of the Moon National
Wilderness Area within Craters of the Moon National
Monument, 43,243 acres.
Establishment of Sawtboth National Recreation Area and
designation of the Sawtooth Wilderness Area. 217,100
acres.
Forest Service releases the Final Environmental Impact
Statement on roadless area revi,ew ("RARE I") which
recommended protection and wilderness study for 274
areas in the nation.
Enactment of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable
Resources Planning Act (RPA).
Establishment of Hells Canyon National Recreation Area
including the Hells Canyon Wilderness. 192,200 acres.
Enactment of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA).
Enactment of Federal Land Policy and Management Act
(FLPMA). Provided guidelines for all p1anning and
administration of federal public lands (managed by
Bureau of Land Management). Directed the Secretary of
Interior to study public BLM lands for wilderness
suitability. Recommendations could be designated
wilderness by Congress. Report due to president in 15
years.
Forest Service begins RARE II, a more comprehensive
review of wilderness suitability of national forest
roadless areas. Broader in scope than "RARE I" and
carried out as an accelerated part of the forest
planning process mandated by the RPA and NFMA.
' 1978 Enactment of Endangered American Wilderness
Designated Gospel Hump Wilderness in Idaho.
acres.
Act.
206,000
Jan 1979 Forest Service issues the Roadless Area Review and
Evaluation (RARE II) with wilderness area
reeommendations for Congr~ss.
Jul 1979 State of California sued the Forest Service, claiming
that the RARE II analysis did not meet the re,qu:i.rements
of NEPA for 47 non-wilderness areas in the state.
1980 U.S. district court judge held that RARE II violated
NEPA by not containing an adequate, site-specific
analysis of the wilderness values foregone in
recommending that the areas be available for
development.
1983 Assistant Sec. of Agriculture directed the Forest.
Service to reevaluate all RARE II recommendations
within the ongoing forest planning process.
1980 Enactment of the Central ~daho Wilderness Act.
Designated River of No Return Wild~rness. Added
Magrueder Corridor to existing Selway-Bitterroot
Wilderness. River of No Return 2,239,000 acres.
Selway Bitterroot addition 105,600 acres.
1984 Renamed "The River of No R~turn Wilderness" as "Frank
Church-River of No Return Wilderness."
Idaho wilderness efforts:
1984 Congressman Larry Craig introduces "Idaho Forest
Management Act of 1984" with 526,000 acres.
DATE? Forest Plans completed proposing 1.3 million acres of
additional wilderness for Idaho.
1990 Governor Cecil Andrus and former Senator James McClure
introduce the "Idaho Fo):"est Management Act of 1988"
which proposed 1.4 million acres as wilderness and an
additional 611,000 acres of other special management
areas.
1984-1992 Congressman Peter Kostmayer introduces Idaho wilderness
proposals calling for about 3,900,000 acres.
1990-1992 Idaho legislature funds wilderness mediation efforts.
199~ BLM releases Idaho wilderness proposal.
(in Million Board Feet)
FY92
Forest ASQ target offered harvested
Clearwater 173 75 24.5 116
Panhandle 280 202 127.2 235
Nez Perce 108 77 49.8 81
Region 1, Idaho 561 354 201.5 432
88-92 Total
Forest target offered harvested
Clearwater 711 589.4 626.4
Panhandle 1222.6 1073.4 1262.6
Nez Perce 492 449.7 419.6
Region 1, Idaho 2425.6 2308.6 2308.6
11-1')-')2 11:09AM FROMCONG. LAROCCOBOISE PC 1/01
Congressman
LARRY LaROCCO
1st Congressional District - Idaho
Washington, D.C. 202·22~-6611
Boise 208-343-4211
Lewiston 208-746-6694 NEWS RELEASE
Coeur d'Alene 208-667-2110
Contact: Tom Knappenberger (208) 343-4211
NovamDer 19, 1992
COJqBIIBHAH LA8QOOO TO BOLD QICIMBIB TQWN MEITtNgj QH WlLDIRNISS
BOISE - Idaho First District Congressman Larry LaRocco
announced today that he will hold three Town Meetings in the
Fir&t Diatriot in early December to hear public opinion on
resolving Idaho's Wilderness issue. .
"For a dozen years this has remained Idaho's most important
unreaolvad natural resources issue," Congressman LaRocco said.
"As with health care and the Persian Gulf war, my tirat atep will
be to hear from the people of Idaho,"
The Town Meetings are scheduled for:
Coeur d'Alene, Monday, Dec. 14, 7 p.m., in the Bonner Room
at North Idaho College;
Lewiston, Tuesday, Dec. 15, 7 p.m., in the Auditorium of
Lewia Clark state College;
Boise', Wednesdl!ly, Dec •. 16, 7 p.m., in the Auditorium of the
Boise Public Library.
,{\
The public is inv+~ed to attend and participate in the open
forum Town Meeting&.
"Clearly Idaho' a nine-million acres of roacUess ll!lnd need to
have decisions on Which areas will remain wild and which areas
will be allocated to other uaas," Congressman LaRocco al!lid.
"Idaho deserves certainty, stability and sustainabilit:y when it
comes to the manaqement ot our national forests. Nine million
acres of land without a decision simply leads to continued
uncertainty."
Congressman LaRocco is a member ot the House Interior and
Insular Affairs Committee. He plana to have Wilderness
legi•lation introduced in the House by the end ot March.
I
fl1040._ [Z~o<:>
I #
/& ~ ()t<- ~ !U U(C{ flJJ1A'Ift<..-f
f]Jti..A'Jt/'1.-
~-
l2-2l-92 12:32 PM FROM GONG. LAROCCO BOISE TO Coeur d'Alene Ott tee POllOI
Congressman
LARRY LaROCCO··
1st Congressional District • Idaho
Washington, D.C. 202-225-6611
Boise 208-343-4211
Lewiston 208-746-6694
Coeur d'Alene 208-667-2110
Contact: Tom Knappenberger (208) 343-4211
Deaeaber as, 1tta
NEWS RELEASE
BOISE - Idaho First District Conqressman Larry LaRocco
announced today that he has scheduled three more Town Meetings in
early January to bear public opinion on resolvinq Idaho's
Wilderness issue.
The meetings are set for:
st. Maries, Jan. 11, at 7 p.m., at st. Maries Hiqh school on
at. Joe aoa4.
aonn•r• rerry, Jan. 11, 7 p.m., at the Bonners rerry City
rire Station, rirst an4 Arisona streets
lmlaett, 'l'hur.day, Jan. 141 7 p.a., at the lmlaett Middle
School, 301 B. 4th st.
As with Conqressman taRocco's previous Town Meetings on
Wilderness, the public is encouraged to attend and share its
opinions and advice as the Conqressman beqins the process of
drafting a Wilderness Bill to be introduced by the end of March.
"For a dozen years this bas remained Idaho's most important
unresolved natural resources issue," Conqressman LaRocco said.
"Aa with health care and the Persian Gulf War, ~y first step will
be to hear from 'the people of Idaho."
Last week, congressman LaRocco held Town Meetings in Coeur
d'Alene, Lewiston, McCall and Boise. More than 1,100 people
attended and about 200 spoke.
"The standing room only crowds and the lack of any acrimony
shows me that Idahoans are ready tc break the gridlock on this
issue ana work toqether to resolve the status of our roadless
areas," Conqressman LaRocco said.
"Clearly Idaho's nine-million acres of roadless land need to
have decisions on which areas will remain wild and which areas
will be allocated to other uses," Conqresaman LaRocco said.
"Idaho deserves certainty, stability and sustainability when
it comes to the management of our national forests. Nine million
acres of land without a decision simply leads to continued
uncertainty."
Conqreasman LaRocco is a member of the House Committee on
Natural Resources, formerly the Interior and Insular Affairs
committee, He plans to have Wilderness legislation introduced in
the House by the end of March.
.. .
I
C)
';-If~
·r
WJ':.' ~­r!-
•d :
........-.-...-...-..~.-...-.. }· = ...... = ..... '-"' -~"-"'"""'' ::1~: .bt.. ~ _.., ..
1 j ;-....:.~o:~~f~)f;'W,1 _ ;r,;,.. ;-h &'l111::'4AU'~'s~~
. ·---~--"-·-·:.._: ~~~\ru3~) \~·an ~~~~j·~uP:~-
· ~- -1 ~;;- · ~1:..!~. D.!:·r.s:.·nof!-;o.>!·} <:t~.t~miJ fo0d1~ ~;'f;;J1-~r~r.~i·>.9ts~;? .fnl::·•-: t~·LJ.~A~:. ~{!'"" - ~·- J~t.'H··
t- ,~ <li .. ~ .. ·''~''>i'.J>•<u :Wild e·rne;sJs ~-,~;Bill! '• J1; g -·• . ·-' ' •.,, ., ,.; . , .""iM......-.... t' t' ,cj •• "'" ' ... ; ., .'·· ., • • •• ·,, r • ! • • 4> • ;.< ro: ··· -sf.,,,~ .•'·!'!U_"·fb J,;,tt!iO .... ~·~~ ... ~ .... f::IJJ~.,.,~ D.-I r. .1.: .. 1:':·-·-d~ '-•~,t·.-{fh.l .-.: ;i. ••
_-<-..i'~ ~".....:..._ b>· i _(-. '!1 · · -~ · ' ..... J •• !.~,1--f~,,, 1'-.t\/P{Jf ~rit.., ,_. ~ .. '--.1, • • , • r • n....... ,- .... -~ .~. .. • ..r. - • • 1· .•. ," '1) ', 1 ,;_~ • , • • -~ •-1 1• •• ,~ Wilderness issue. Howeyer, the bill you propo~e .doesn't work. It is not
citiZen$~'Idah~ ¢hllnot let a few .people domiflate'the an&catioil:'Jii'oc~ss -~a beii~~e their' ..
inte;rtionS.\VerJ:good but you niiss~d the mark. . ;-,;,j;.:J~ ;,) .; n·.•<oo, <. : -: .r ,
- · - · -- - · t! · '· · · _ •. _, ·} _ -~~; • ~ ~ ... ~tiJS':1m ~w-vd fr:i-J'.'~-~ :- ~r:r ..- ;;·--1 _.. .~ -t: ... · .r :·-•
~ -~ ·l~o !'(J..,l)-.. ;::•.:;a.G') ...1 ~H1-ti-'' Js ·;:sbf:i)tA ~nt b'J ---ru·. :·: ·;:;~, . r ,, •· 1, ,
~~·V • . of outdoor recreation from lands traditionally used .. It also··predudes ·. ·.'' ·
ennauce manus \vuillife, includlli'g lpreateiied.and endangered species.' cutback~· in n
eresoU:rce base(l;inausmes have made all forms of dutdoo~ re6Peatio~ abd more iniportaiifh~ e~;-t~ ldaiiO's 'economy. We now have a . ·:, ..
~ai'ieiY ofr:~rJ~ti~~~Pii'rrtt""llilies tiil~i'Y:~af-rorii~l>rsTh:o~soriie or the proposed wilderness ~adit:ions wilt eliminate those historic·,_;, -~.; '" ·._ ·.
"·-~7-...~.v F' ~ ,•'•"• ~~" •.-.: >.;rP-:· '-, >;:;11/- '· ·.&Ji¢.;;i,"A'-·'," _-_,._,··'r=_ • ._. ,. h . ""'" - .. "- :£_ _... ""~ ~"'~{. '!··~ fr.: - . • • , ' . . . "' ., '"' ·-\"'' ,__- . -..•h..r, .• _•.._~_. ' ' ' '-..." ~· ..... Ji.l }!}J" .t - ."(' ,-
:opQOi-tunjti~&,ttcilli.teYO?ar~as:.~.'\~1~~~;~;:~-~:~~f .. :;,., ~~#2:~: 1.!1 :~11~if~ .. ~-~)~: :\i~i) ·Jf·:·;t: ____ !1 _ · ·.a~ ~e-er; :Is? .lleH 11lJ aJis4 ;z;9 i 2m:fr1 .. ". ~mr"·- J .~:: ·:c
~~~r~~~~~~1t!1~~lJ~$~:~~-~r{l(~:jif,~)~:~~ -~ l ·;:-.... .$'' -ll~9,. ;-toq-:!J2 :y...-eJ .:LH'n-9mo;~a:;qua zHs~ t;e,oq _ l fo-od;? ~:u ~v ·:'WJ .:-·t ·e , ..
7oi. .. .._ ·'- -~ , •• tt •..• ~ ...... -- •.. J s.-.. - --_ .. -·~ .. m- •.. -......... - .t ·----•...: -~•;--•~· .. --:;·! c~t hub~ :1.... ..., ' b , •
. Vl·JJ, n;r,~,_, 8:0 •, :), .•. ';:)11 1S .m .... 1 ~.: ~•T"j: t.r: ,?•trr1•:t nJf~...:". _,. ..
ld.llU::i Where recreation \md associated resources' can o~'feafured. Where trails can be
· .,._, .. to experience nature, camping, fishing~and ~~Ynhi ~dllie::~':'where·, ,
,,..~_,...\ .~"'-J' l v-:~ l'"~~f1'i. • •. , : • bstacles to rmgrating sah
-----sites CC!ll bebardeneifto-aCCOmmQaatehurrian Use' With 'i>'C'•.
art equipment and groomed to accommodate .winter uses. There
~, . .., ~, ~- 'I' .. --~ "'il'ffiJ ~~ ~ -~- 'If,.;~--.
' ••c "- J,1. : __~ -,_,__' -"~' . . ~ ~'-ii- .~ . ' '
~ ' . .
~ , ,;-~-"' .. f A ?-"-if"'~Ll
'
'J·".r-.irnon ;::'bc~h.h:. ... ..-;___. f·J·-~~--
·;.--:.::i '3-rU 1o ·:"),j ·: • t ·-·~i:-J ·.
.:<;:~ dJ}w n5·~r'l "t. •• ··li': :;
-~·n 1n ·;.·::- :J •• •·• •• • uamess .areas_ m the
designatingotifStall~g'areaifas ... -,..,.,, : " --· -:--'1
•.
reatior{, ~Wndi~arltrot6fection of dti~af -~~·;;. ,;·
,0 2H·~!jf,.,l:J._:o::.. 1i·-: ""-L•!?.
""'" ..... -,..~ <f'T¥:.l'.:n ;r. ' • - -
, ..t <'::~E•u&, VLIJ1J0'1 ~~1 Z::l..lflfi
• Idalw ~ta~ ~~~9fH~~,;~~,~;~'~j9;';i~~~,:~ .ft~~~T!~~e .Y~~Y.T~ ¥~;!Jin~.~~~ ,:·
• Panharidle va-RoadVerucle ~ctatiQn' uc-: a:;:;. w.JH .?..l!IJ!~arqe!). Valley Sn,owmobtle Club <>o: ,,22!' ·'
•Gem Motorcycle Ouh .c .;, h<:cu m '(i~o-rq 'lJ()'( -<J~l JJ '·• Pocateno'rr3il MaCilliie'Ass<iciafion ''-":-/ ...~ ~ .
. "~4 .CoH~ty· ·s1
ult;::!J :t'·b'n1' A:~ ~.t\flti~ "-t-"•f .1~0 ti. 1!1~~: .n·:. ~nbr,1 ~· ... ,'"l':J: c-.:.·;.'_:·n.:&.. ... ;,: -.:..-~,q :mclA·o ,~· ..
•ucm un nowmo e~ocm on -~ 21 ~?sH; ~nJ .... ~,• l'WI~
• .- ' • • ,.. -­~;::
1· '%·
DISCUSSION OF CENTRAL IDAHO WILDERNESS ACT OF 1980
CONFERENCE REPORT
To further clarify the reasons why certain road less areas had been rejected from wilderness
designation, the Senate Report included the following narrative under the heading, "Area
Specific Concerns:"
"The Committee heard extensive testimony from the people of Idaho County
about the importance of East and West Meadow.Creek, Mallard, and Jersey Jack
roadless areas for timber resources. These areas have deep soils and above
average moisture and are thus prime timber growing sites. The Committee felt
they should be available for development under normal multiple-use procedures .
• • •
"3. Meadow Creek East (east Meadow Creek, Running Creek, and Upper Bar­gamin
Creek drainages).- All of the road less lands within the Forest Service's
Meadow Creek East RARE II Unit (01845) were recommended for designation as
wilderness by the Administration. However, the Committee has carefully reviewed
this roadless area and decided not to designate n as wilderness. Thus, it is the
Committee's intent that this 97,700 acre area should be treated as multiple-use
land ... The Committee shares the concern of the people of Idaho County about
the timber supply situation on the Nezperce National Forest. That is the primary
reason why this area is not being designated as wilderness as recommended by
the Administration ...
"4. Meadow Creek West.- This 95,380 acre roadless area is separated from the
Meadow Creek East roadless area by Meadow Creek itself. The Committee gave
careful consideration to the future use of this area and concurred with the
Administration's RARE II recommendation that the area not become wilderness.
This area is close to the timber dependent community of Elk CifX, Idaho, and the
Committee agrees that this unit should be available to provide timber which in
turn provides jobs and a healthy economy in the small towns of Idaho Coun­ty.'"[
emphasis added]
The joint House-Senate conference committee adopted these area specific considera­tions
with the following reference:
"The conferees also agreed to incorporate (by reference) within this Statement of
Managers the area specific concerns found on pages 9-11 of Sen. Rpt.96-414.
(Footnote: These concerns relate to the Jersey Jack, Big Mallard, Meadow Creek
East, Meadow Creek West, and Silver Creek-Pilot Knob areas.)" ,.
13 Senate Report, supra note. t2, at t 1.
14 Conference Report, supra note 3, at 12.
Area-S pectic
Concerns
·~
..... •
II
City, Grnngcvillc and the other small Idaho and west.,rn }fontana.
towns which depend upon the surrounding national forests as a. source
of raw materials for their.snwmills. The land allocation questions for
most of central Idaho will be settled when this legislation is ap­proved.
Thus, the operntors of the mills in those towns-and the
townspeople as well-will know what tho timber base will be in the
future and cnn rnake their long-term economic plans accordingly.
The Scope of thi.1 Deci.1i.on
The central Idaho region covered by this decision encompasses a.ll
of those rondlcss rmd unde,·elopcd areas within the State of Idaho
which nre immediately contiguous to the e:tisting Idaho and Salmon
Ri1·er flrenks l'rirniti,·e Arens. In addition, this decision covers land
allocations northward in the so-called }'Magruder Corridor" area on
the Bitterroot National Forest. The decision also e:ttends to other non­contiguous
road less areas on the mn.in body of the Nezperce National
Forest east of the Salmon Ri1·er,' on the S"lmon and Challis National
Forests cast n.nd south of the proposed Wver of No Return lVilderness,
and on nen.rby lands on t.l1e flitterroot National Fore.'t in Montana:
Tho ~fontn.na lands nrc included because of their importance in as·
suring- a. continued supply of timbrr- from Nn.tionnl Forest lands
'"n·ing the I>nrhv, .\fontana mill. Thus, this decision confirms the
non-wi!Uenwss mtiltiplc-ll."C srattts of the following areas or portions
of areas which are not being designated as wilderness by this Act:
R1t1 II Estimthd • .,.u [Jtlmt!td
Atu n1m1 "" No. tcruu Atn n1tn1 ''"No. ICIUII
;~~r.cr'.t~~~ _c_I_r~~~~ _I_•_c_~>: :::.: .. :: 01921 ~s. 'C¥1 Plltltn ..... ...................... 04S08 II, 0)5
01&41 26. •oo Ott\ Ctttlr. ....................... """' 21. 170
Mudow Ctnlr. Wnt ............... CI&H 9~, JIJO hut Clttlr. .... .................. 04510 1!,710
Mudo..- Crnlr. btl• ......... ..... DialS 91, 700 Prrrttu Ctttlr. ........ ............ 04511
Rackclin Ctdnty . ................. 0\U\ 33,000 T ulot Mount tin .................. 04502 d',·I 10550
Middlt Fork hct ....... .......... 018'2 II, 200 Ctrnn Cutlr. ........ ............. (4202 71, 0'30
Clttr C11tlr. .. .................... OIIJU 26. 700 Sulphur Crttlr. (M) ................ 14066 61, ]20
lleiiJ Mount1in .... ............... 01857 "'" Spr•nr B11in, ......... ........... O.C21!
Silnr Cruk·PIIol M:nab ............ 018'9 )6, 100 Squtw Crttlr. ........ ............. 04217 I06'·,1 4S020
Hortl'l Fork Slllt Crttlr. ............ omo u. 700 Crt,lock ......................... 04211 II. 870
Lilllt Sttlt Crttll ..... ............ 01!51 '· 200 NJcolnn lflcl1t .. , ... ............. G-C501 7, 710
Jol'ln Oar ........................ OIIJS2 10,000 Alltn Mounll•n ................... Q.t946 &6, 670
Enr Pulhtr Crnk ............... (4505 JO, 469 Alltn MouniJin, ....... ........... LIYAC 111. 100
Do .......................... 51504 14, 001 Sto"h Mounltln .. , . ............... ll BAD so. •oo
JUfflno ........ ................. 04506 Jl, 170 Nort Bl~ Holt .................... AIOOI 1. aoo
Haysltclr. Mountun ........ ....... 04507 12, )00 St1,.11 B•"tttOOI. ... , .. .......... AI BAA 611, •CO
• Thit cltchioll clirecb lht tdmlnhflllion tnd lht Fornt :Servict to""'"" lhtir Apr, 16, 197!, rKOmmtnclt!lon lhtt 1
portro11 ol tht Mudow C11elr. dtailllrt 111d lht Upper llunni11r Cruk tnd tlpptr Btrrlmin Crttlr. drti"'•" should bt
.. rldtr,en. Both lht Houu •ncltl'ltStnalt hnre caulully tumlntcl!ht tdmillistrtholl'l rt-eommtndttion fhtl 11'1t Muelo•
Ctulr. Eurunit (01145) bt cltlirntltd IJ wildunus tnd htwt drltrmlntd lhttlhiJ tru lhould IIOillt duJ rnt!td .. ildtrnus
but should bt mtntrt4 fat 11111 other thtn '"lcletntn. for 1 cltltiltcl discussion ol thi1 trtt, ut S. lrtpl 96""14, p. 10
Tho rondless nrens listed above have been thoroughly cnmined by
tho Congress. They nrc not being designated wilderness by this legis·
lntion and will remain subject to sustained-yield, multiple-use manage­mont
under the st.atutes nnu regulations generally applicable to all
non-wildcrncs.~ Nntionnl Forest Systemlnnds. The timber resources on
these unclassified lnnds shall be included, as appropriate, in the nonnal
timber management planning process, in the calculation of tho poten·
tial yield (allowable sale quantity) and nllo"·able timber harvest
levels for tho appropriate_ national forests. ·
JThn roadleou nr"n• we!'lt or theo Sallnnn Rt,·eor on the "Nezpf'r"" Natlnn11t Fnrl'at bf'nr no
I!Hrl"'•lr: relatlnn"lllp to the nrf'a eoY"erc:-d by the eonfrrt•e'a tlellbeoratlona on lhla bill. In
(lnrUeuiAr, tho:<~e ..d tltln nnd adJncent to the H"ll• Canyon National Recrf'Atlon Area ar•
mnre appropriately ftddresaed In rrllltlnn to the plaanlnc tor that areR mandated br Public
l.nw 0-f-100,
• I
I
United States
Department of
Agriculture
Forest Service
NezPerce
National Forest e---
1:-
1
·~;
. . .
- ·>
~ . :! I. i
n~. . " ·- j·:,- ~- ?~:r .. ,:_~---~~-'-~~~::'~'.
~ ~
Nez Perce National Forest Plan
R~cord of De~i_sion -
.. v -~
·- '
·' - ,• i.
..G ,I !AHGEVUE . -
-
•• • I
•• I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Wilderness and directed the Forest Service to develop a multiple-use plan to guide the
development of three specific areas referred to as the 'Gospel-Hump Multipurpose Re­source
Development Area·. Refer to Chapter I, Section D, •special Planning Requirements•
in the Forest Plan for further information on the multipurpose resource development areas.
The Forest Plan meets this direction and provides specific management direction for these
areas in Chapter IV, •Geographic Display Areas• .
Central Idaho Wilderness Act of 1980
In the Central Idaho Wilderness Act of 1980 (CIWA) (PL 96-312), the East Meadow Creek
area, along with twelve other roadless areas, was evaluated for wilderness and
non-wilderness uses. One of the purposes of the aet stated in Section 2.(b)(2) was 'to end
the controversy over which lands within the central Idaho region will be designated wil­derness
- thereby assuring that certain adjacent lands better suited for multiple uses other
than wilderness will be managed by the Forest Service under existing laws and applicable
land management plans.•
The Conference Report for the committee of conference for the CIWA states, relative to the
Meadow Creek East area and the other areas considered but not designated wilderness,
that these areas are available for multiple-use management and provides that the uses are
to be determined through Forest Planning in accordance with the National Forest Man­agement
Act of 1976:
'The roadless areas listed above have been examined by the Congress. They are not
being designated wilderness by this legislation and will remain subject to sus­tained-
yield, multiple-use management under the statutes and regulations generally
applicable to all non-wilderness National Forest System lands. The timber resources
on these unclassified lands shall be included, as appropriate, in the normal timber
management planning process, in the calcufation of the potential yield (allowable sale
quantity) and allowable timber harvest levels for the appropriate national forests.
'Of course, the non-wilderness multiple-use status of these lands resulting from this
decision does not imply that they are to receive any less careful management in the
fU1ure. The National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) was designed to assure
careful and judicious planning for all national forests. The regulations which were
promulgated by the Secretary of Agriculture pursuant to Section 6 of that Act (36
CFR 219 ... ) will help make certain that these lands are properly managed under
principles of wise forest stewardship.•
(Conference Report No. 96-1126, pages 11 and 12).
believe that the Forest Plan addresses this expression of intent by the Congressional
committees through the Forest Planning process conducted in accordance with the Na­tional
Forest Management Act of 1976 (36 CFR 219) and that the Forest Plan establishes the
management direction for these areas in compliance with this mandate.
In addition to the areas identified by the CIWA, other existing roadless areas were also
evaluated in Forest Planning.
Roadless Areas
Management decisions for the roadless areas (503, 162 acres) on the Forest include:
7
• No land will be recommended as additions to the present wilderness acreage on the
Forest.
• 140,275 acres will not be suited for timber production. This includes parts of two areas that
will be managed for semiprimitive recreation and protection of cultural resources. These are
parts of Rapid River (19,343 acres) and Silver Creek-Pilot Knob (13,300 acres). Refer to
Management Area 11, Chapter Ill in the Forest Plan for a complete discussion of the goals
and standards for these areas.
• Portions of the remaining areas (302,036 acres) are included in the suitable timber base.
·The entire West Meadow Creek roadless area remains in the timber suitable land base. li is
my decision to make this area, along with the remaining suitable land base, available for
road construction and timber harvesting as needed to rJ]eet Forest Plan goals· and objec­tives.
Entry into this area will be a Forest Supervisor decision during Forest Plan im­plementation.
· Through the Forest Planning process, I have carefully considered nonwilderness mul­tiple-
use management including.timber harvesting for East Meadow Creek. At this time, I do
not believe we have adequate information to protect the sensitive watersheds and anad·
romous fisheries that exist in the area. However, I believe that there are opportunities to
develop and use the timber resources on 60,851 acres of tentatively suitable land.
This area will be available for a wide range of multiple-use activities including mineral
exploration and development. I have decided to exclude this area from the suitable land
base and the calculations of ASQ so that we can, through further study based on existing
management practices, gain a better understanding of the effectiveness of the proposed
vegetative management activities and road building as carried out under the principles of
wise stewardship. Under this plan, no capital investments will be made. Adequate funding
will be programmed to insure that the necessary studies are accomplished and the data
evaluated before any such activities occur in the area. This information is, in my opinion,
necessary before a sound decision can be reached on timber suitability and scheduling of
activities.
My intent is to manage this area for nonwi!derness multiple-use options and insure sufficient
protection of the sensitive water and fisheries resources of the area. This decision provides
for making appropriate additions to the suitable land base and the ASQ based on further
analysis with plan amendment procedures and full public involvement.
Anadromous Fish Habitat
Anadromous fish habitat will be managed to achieve 87 percent of its potential. This will be
achieved by managing each drainage to an established fish and water quality objective (see
Appendix A of the Forest Plan) and implementing 4,000 acres of direct fish habitat _im·
provements during the Plan period. An analysis will be completed to provide the details on
the problems with each stream that is currently below the stated habitat objective, the type
of habitat improvement that is needed in each stream, and which streams will receive
improvements first.
8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•• •• •• •
• •
•
I
I
I
I
I
• •
•
• I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
An opportunity exists to add 60,851 suitable acres during the Plan period. The potential
increase in the allowable sale quantity for the Plan period from this area is 20 million board feet.
This land is located in East Meadow Creek.
Maintenance and improvement of existing anadromous fish habitat is achievable by designing
and scheduling management activtties, primarily road construction, to control the amount of
sediment these activities produce.
During the review of the Proposed Forest Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement, it
was discovered that some of the Nez Perce fish/water quality objectives were lower than the
idaho Department of Fish and Game's objectives i!S stated in their 'Anadromous Fisheries
Management Plan, 1985-1990'. An initial analysis showed that simply raising the objectives in
the affected drainages would reduce timber harvest throughout the Forest to 880 million board
teet over the Plan period. However, additional analysis showed that the timber harvest could
be maintained while meeting Fish and Game Department objectives by increasing measures
to reduce sediment in 23 key drainages. Sediment mttigation practices are discussed on
pages 82-84, Chapter IV in EIS.
Two basic ways to manage timber stands on the Nez Perce National Forest are even-aged and
uneven-aged. This was the subject of considerable public comment.
In determining the appropriate silvicultural systems, I considered three groups of factors .
The first group considered was the major vegetative types found on the Forest and common
individual stand condttions. The four major vegetative types found on the Forest are mixed
conifer, Ponderosa pine-Rocky Mountain Douglas fir, Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir, and
lodgepole pine. State-of-the-art silvicunural information indicates that either even-aged or
uneven-aged management can be used on any of these vegetative types; however, individual
stand condttions are critical to the decision. (>ilviculiural Systems for Mapr Forest Types of the
United States, Agricu~ural Handbook 455, USDA Forest Service.) Stands with decadent over­story
vegetation and sparse regeneration, and stands at high risk to insect disease epidemics
are common on the Forest. Wtth even-aged systems, stands with a high percentage of
overmature, suppressed, or diseased trees can be rapidly regenerated into young, vigorous
stands. There is also more opportunity to control species and stocking to minimize future pest
problems.
The second group of factors I considered were the non-timber resource objectives and the
ways they are affected by silvicunural systems. Included were the amount of wildlife disturb­ance
due to logging and related activtties, the economical efficiency of timber harvesting and
transportation system, the impact on visual quality, the ability to meet riparian-dependent
resource needs, and the growth rate of regenerated stands.
Even-aged management maximizes the volume of timber per unit of road and enhances the
economics of harvesting. This is an important consideration in maintaining .water quality and
fish habttat without severely impacting timber harvest. Even-aged management, even though
it has a more immediate impact on wildlife than uneven-aged management, usually requires
only one to three harv~st entries during an 80 to 120 year rotation.
I did consider uneven-aged management for those areas where resource objectives can be
met by stand condttions created by harvest operations associated with selection harvest.
Uneven-aged management generally provides continuous tree cover, resuning in less appar­ent
visual change and hiding cover for some wildlife species; however, it also requires
19
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 5.--Roadless Areas Considered in
RARE II and the Forest Plan
Area Name RARE II 1986 Semlprim Wilderness
Acres Acres
Big Canyon 1/ . 16,500 0
Clear Creek 26,700 11,876
Dixie Sumit Nut Hill 17,746 11,943
Dixie Tai12/ 8,256 0
Gospei-Hump(Jersey-Jack) 56,780 54,321
John Day .10,000 14,991
Kelly Mountain 3/ 800 0
Klopton Cr.-Corral Cr. 1/ 23,520 0
Uck Pt. 8,006 8,006
Little Slate 9,200 19,568
Mallard 22,919 23,232
Meadow Creek
East Meadow 97,720 94,203
West Meadow 95,380 107,512
Middle Bargamin 12,600 0
Middle Fork Face 11,200 10,170
North Fork Slate 14,500 12,783
O'Hara-FaJis Cr. 25,326 25,326
Rackliff-Gedney
(Nez Perce NF portion) 53,000 55,483
Rapid River
(Nez Perce NF portion) 27,940 23,300
Salmon Face 9,300 9,414
Silver Cr.-Pilot Knob 35,729 21,034
V Included in Hell's Canyon NationaJ Recreation Area
2/ Included in Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness
3/ No longer meets criteria
Rec/Defer MA9
MA 11
94,203
19,343
13,300
Available for
Development
0
11,876
11,943
0
54,321
14,991
0
0
8,006
19,588
23,232
0
107,512
0
10,170
12,783
25,326
55,483
3,957
9,414
7.734
I believe that wilderness designation for these roadless areas would unnecessarily forgo
present and future options for mu~iple-use management.
A case-by-case evaluation of each roadless area indicated that due to inherent characteristics
such as geographic location, size, existing resources and resource potentials, some roadless
areas were more significant than others. The public also recognized these distinctions and
frequently mentioned specific roadless areas in their comments. As a result of this individual
area evaluation and public comments, I identified several key roadless areas. These key
roadless areas and my rationale for decisions for each follow:
East Meadow Creek
This area consists of 94,203 acres which contain both significant and sensnive resources.
Streams in this area contain some of the most significant anadromous fish habitat on the
Forest; this habnat will contribute to the recovery of wild populations of anadromous fish.
Approximately 12 percent of the biological potential, forest-wide (excluding wilderness), for
anadromous smo~ production comes from the streams wnhin this roadless area: The area also
contains an important winter range for elk.
23
' .
About 60,851 acres are considered tentatively suitable for timber production. The middle
elevation contains stands of ponderosa pine on southern and western exposures. Cedar is
present in the lower creek bottoms, and lodgepole pine and subalpine species prevail at the
higher elevations. There are no known threats of insects, or disease that will cause loss of
the timber potential, in the next decade. Most of the potentially valuable stands of timber
occur in scattered pockets on the lower slopes of the area. Due to landforms in the
drainages in the area, the commercially valuable stands can only be accessed from above.
Because of the remote location of this area in relation to existing transportation facilities, the
location of many of the valuable timber stands in lower elevations, and the inabil(ty to
access this timber from below, an excessive amount bf road construction would be nec­essary
to access potential timber sales. Steep slopes, fragile soils, and high fishery values,
require extensive mitigation measures to protect the fishery and water resources.
I have reviewed both the CIWA and the Congressional Reports related to this area. I believe
that my decision complies with the intent of these documents. As directed, considerations
for careful management of this area have led me to the conclusion that information is not
available at this point upon which to base a decision on suitability of timber production and
scheduling of activities. This conclusion was reached after an examination of concerns
raised by the public related to the compatibility of timber production with anadromous fish
habitat and soil and water quality protection in this area. I intend to strengthen existing
resource information and evaluate the adequacy of sediment mitigation measures before
reaching decisions on development of this area.
Maintenance and enhancement of habitat for the wild steelhead and salmon run in the
upper Clearwater River drainage is of prirriary importance. I am deferring timber production
until further analysis can determine whether and how these values can be protected.
Rackliff-Gedney
The Nez Perce portion of this area consists of 55,463 acres between the Lochsa and Selway
Rivers from their confluence eastward to the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderoess. Vegetation over
about 75 perqent of the area is largely a resutt of wildfires 50-70 years ago. Although trees
have regenerated on some sites, much of the area consists of extensive brush fields with
islands of unburned trees and snags.
While brush fields are a major supply of browse for big game, much of this vegetation has
grown too high to furnish quality browse, resulting in declining elk populations. Of the
remaining 25 percent of the area, approximately 20 percent (11 ,000 acres) is suitable timber
land with mature and overmature stands of timber. Approximately 5 percent (2,800 acres)
are located· along the higher ridges and are unsuitable for timber management.
My decision is to manage approximately 38,000 acres of brush fields in this area primarily
for the benefit of big game (Refer to Management Area 16, page 111-16, in the Forest Plan).
An active burning program will be implemented to improve elk winter range. I have also
decided that the remaining 11,000 acres of standing timber will be managed as suitable
timber land and will be developed in coordination with other resource objectives in the area.
Rapid River
The Nez Perce portion of this roadless area consists of 23,300 acres adjoining the Hells
Canyon Wilderness. This .area contains Rapid River, a national Wild and Scenic River.
24
..
...,
..
Jl
~
II
II
Ill
II
~·I
Jl
II
• Jl
Jl
II
Ill
Ill
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
A chinook salmon hatchery operated by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game is located
just outside of the Nez Perce National Forest boundary on the northeast side of the road less
area. This hatchery, built by the Idaho Power Company as compensation for fishery losses
resulting from the construction of the Hells Canyon Dam complex, uses water from Rapid
River.
The area is generally very steep, resulting in high potentials for erosion and mass soil
movement. Areas of active mass soil movements are evident throughout the area.
My decision is to manage 19,343 acres of this area with· no new road construction. These
acres encompass the Nez Perce portion of the roadless area that are in the Rapid River
Drainage. Based on soil and topographical features in the Rapid River drainage and the
resulting erosion hazards, I believe this is necessary to provide high-quality water to ensure
the successful operation of the Rapid River fish hatchery.
The remaining 3,957 acres will be managed for timber and other multiple uses as described
in Chapter Ill of the Forest Plan.
West Meadow Creek
This area consists of 107,512 acres to the west of Meadow Creek and is the largest roadless
area on the Forest. Much of the area is steep, especially on the middle and lower reaches of
Meadow Creek. Much of the upper Meadow Creek drainage burned in 1919 and is now
covered with 60-to 65-year-old, regenerated timber stands. Scattered pockets of older
stands of spruce and fir have escaped fire.
Of all of the roadless areas on the Forest, this area received the most public comment.
Many comments cited the high fishery and wildlife value as a reason for wanting this area
left roadless. Other comments supported the development of the area citing the need for an
adequate timber supply to assure that timber-related jobs would not be lost. Concerns were
also expressed about the impacts of development on big-game outfitters and guides who
operate in the area.
Senate Report 96-414 (to accompanyS. 2009), page 11, states:
• ... The Committee gave careful consideration to the future use of this area and
concurred with the Administration's RARE II recommendation that the area not be­come
wilderness. This area is close to the timer-dependent community of Elk City,
Idaho and the Committee agrees that this unit should be available to provide timber
which, in turn, provides jobs and a healthy economy in the small towns in Idaho
County.
As was the case with the east side of Meadow Creek, the western reaches of the
watershed contribute clean water to Meadow Creek which flows into the Selway
River. Thus, any development of this area should be done cautiously with the water
quality of Meadow Creek in mind. •
I considered the Congressional intent in developing management direction for this area.
The management prescription applied to the area west of Meadow Creek offers a
cost-efficient means of meeting Forest Plan goals and objectives over the planning horizon.
25
. '
This prescription includes the area in the suitable land base for timber harvest. The man­agement
objectives for nontimber resources in the area are not precluded by timber harvest
and road construction.
Resource values such as water quality, fish, wildlife, and recreation, will remain high.
Management standards and practices outlined in the Forest Plan can maintain or enhance
these other resource values in conjunction with timber harvest and development. Sediment
mitigation practices, restricting use of new roads, and careful placement of harvest units are
some of the steps that will assure that other resources are protected.
Increasing the timber values as a result of growth or market conditions will improve the
economic viability of sales in this area. Also, road ·access costs will tend to decline as the
primary road system is completed in adjacent- areas. The combination of these factors will
result in improved timber sale economics in West Meadow Creek.
Silver Creek-Pilot Knob
This area consists of 21,034 acres and includes the upper part of Silver Creek and several
small tributaries of Newsome Creek. The area is dominated by Pilot Rock and Pilot Knob, a
7,000-foot ridge in the center of the area that can be seen from any high point on the west
side of the Forest.
In the Proposed F crest Plan, 6 million board feet of timber were scheduled for harvest within
the roadless area boundary.
During the review period for the Proposed Forest Plan and Draft Environmental Impact
Statement, the Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee expressed concern for the protection
of important Indian cuttural and religious sites in the area. The committee requested that no
timber harvesting, road building, or any other land-disturbing activities be allowed to take
place adjacent or in close proximity to those sites. Members of my staff worked with Tribal
committee members to identify areas of specific concern.
As a result of this joint effort, my decision is to manage apprqximately 13,300 acres of this
area, in the upper part of Silver Creek, with no additional roads and no scheduled timber
harvests. This management will also be beneficial for fisheries, wildlife, and dispersed
recreation resources.
Mallard and Gospel-Hump
These two areas combined consist of 77,553 acres immediately above the Salmon River
Breaks. This is high, rolling, timbered country with meadows along some of the larger
creeks. The predominant timber type is lodgepole pine. There are also stands of ponderosa
pine and Douglas-fir adjacent to the boundary of the Frank Church - River of No Return
Wilderness.
Under the proposed Forest Plan, there were approximately 81 million board feet of timber
scheduled for harvest in these two areas.
During formal consultation on the proposed Forest Plan and Draft Environmental Impact
Statement, as required by the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service made 'conservation recommendations• for each of these areas. They fecommended
that timber harvesting and road construction be delayed in part of both roadless areas for
26
(.
United States
Department of
Agriculture
Forest Service
., -
Nez Perce National Forest Plan;,-,_~~,-/
·-
•
ROADLFSS AREA 1845 - MEADOW CREEK
201,715 Acres
This is the largest roadless area on the Nez Perce National Forest,
encompassing almost all of the Meadow Creek drainage. It joins the
Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness on the north and east, and is separated from the
Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness by a road on the south.
Area 1845 was evaluated in detail during previous wilderness studies as two
subareas, 1845C and 18450. That format is continued here. The wilderness
recommendations for Area 1845 in the alternatives are done by subareas, but in
at least one alternative both subareas are assigned to wilderness, and in at
least one other both are assigned to nonwilderness. Thus, the entire area is
considered for wilderness classification.
As a whole, this area contains nearly all features of the two adjacent
wildernesses except low-elevation river break country. Meadow Creek is one of
the largest streams in the Selway drainage, and it divides Area 1845 into two
nearly equal parts. The Creek runs north and south for approximately 15 miles,
then runs east and west for about 8 miles before turning north and south again
to its source. Thus, a full range of aspects, elevations, and vegetative
types is represented; and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation
are outstanding.
ROADLESS AREA 1845C -- Meadow Creek West
107,512 Acres
A. DESCRIPTION
Meadow Creek is a principal tributary of the Selway River which enters about a
mile above Selway Falls. Area 1845C is essentially the west side of the Meadow
Creek drainage, although a few small streams drain into American River, a
tributary of the South Fork of the Clearwater.
This area joins Headless Area 18450 on the east and is separated by a road
corridor from the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness on the south. The
western boundary is, for the most part, the divide that separates the Selway
and South Fork of the Clearwater drainages. Road access is by way of Road 443
on the north and west sides, and Roads 468 and 285 on the south.
The entire main stem of Meadow Creek above the junction with the East Fork is
included in this area. Elevations range from about 1,800 feet at the trailhead
on the northern boundary to 7,232 feet at Granite Peak. Slopes are steep,
mostly facing east and north. As is characteristic of north and east
exposures, vegetation in most parts of the area is dense, especially in the
stream bottoms. Pacific yew is common, and thick. The head of Meadow Creek is
open, however, with the meadows that give the Creek its name.
C-75
•• ••
•• ••
•
•
• "
~ . • •• I
• I
• I
Virtually all of the upper Meadow Creek drainage burried in 1919, and much of it
is now covered with thick reproduction. There are some stands of fir and
spruce on lands that escaped this and other fires. Lodgepole pine and
subalpine species are common at higher elevations.
Scenic areas include Anderson B~tte and Meadow Creek. Sensitive wildlife
occurring in the Area include gray wolves, elk, bald eagle, steelhead trout,
chinook salmon, and possibly grizzly bears. One of the key attractions of this
Area is the extremely high water quality of Meadow Creek. It is one of the
very few streams left on the Forest with very excellent water quality and a
productive anadromous fishery. Other special features are Green Mountain
Lookout which is one of the older lookout locations on the Forest, Horse Point
Lookout Site, Meadow Creek cabin, old sheep driveways, evidence of glaciation
in the upper Meadow-Fourmile area, Meadow Creek and Anderson Butte National
Recreation Trails, and the Nez Perce Trail.
Current uses include grazing, hiking, motorcycle riding, hunting, fishing,
I
I
I
I
I
I
backpacking, camping, horseback riding, snowmobiling, and sightseeing along the •
Montana Road. One outfitter operates in the Area.
Under 36 CFR 219.17, roadless areas evaluated in previous unit plans, but not
included in the last nationwide roadless area review and evaluation, must be
reconsidered for wilderness classification. Two such areas, 1228 and 1229,
share common boundaries with Area 1845C, and have been included in it.
B. CAPABILITY
This section describes the basic characteristics which make the Area
appropriate and valuable for wilderness regardless of the area's availability
or need.
1. Natural Integrity
Long-term ecological processes have been only slightly impacted in Area 1845C.
The area has a history of grazing. At one time, there were many sheep grazing
allotments in Areas 1845C and 18450. Stock driveways are shown on Forest maps
as early as 1911, and large sheep allotments first appeared on Forest maps in
1920. Most likely, they were both established before these maps came out.
Although the effects of past sheep grazing have largely vanished, the effects
of the stock driveways have not. They can be identified in the Meadow Creek
Area and in the adjoining Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness because they go almost
straight down one side of a hill and straight up the other side, and are
cleared to a width of 50 feet. Erosion has left its mark on these sites,
despite reconstruction of many of the driveways into graded trails.
Grazing today is much less extensive, concentrated mostly along the western
boundary and around the meadows in the head of Meadow Creek.
C-78
•• • I
• I
I
• I
I
••
For full document, please contact
Boise State University I Albertsons Library
Special Collections and Archives
1910 University Dr. Boise, ID 83725-1430
archives@boisestate.edu, 208-426-3958

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

The contents of this item, including all images and text, are for personal, educational, and non-commercial use only. The contents of this item may not be reproduced in any form without the express permission of Boise State University Special Collections and Archives. For permissions or to place an order, please contact the Head of Special Collections and Archives at (208) 426-3958 or archives@boisestate.edu.

Full Text

t
Honorable Ceqil Andrus
Honorable Larry Craig
Honorable Dirk Kempthorne
Honorable Larry LaRocco
Honorable Mike Crapo
July 2, 1993
Rsc1211/12D
!Ut 9f99J
~~e~
Poeu, d' A/en~ t:J LaROcco
' ""~IO BJo,
4
Re: Idaho Timber Supply Issues - Task Force Report
Gentlemen:
First, please let us take this opportunity to thank you for
recognizing the need for a solution to the economic and
environmental crisis relative to the timber resource,· and
deciding to make a concerted effort ~o ~olve that crisis.
It· is truly .. an example of statesmanship over politics. We
are certain that the Idaho public is quite appreciative of
your efforts.
The undersigned consist of local~y elected and appointed
officials and timber resource 'experts residing in Boundary
County, Idaho. We have had an opportunity to review the May
24, 1993 Idaho Timber Supp~y Issues Task Force report
entitled "Statutory Prescriptive Language for Idaho W~lder­ness
Legisla-tion". We ·-- respectfu·liy request that: 'you con­sider
the following suggestions.
The people of Boundary Cou~ty believe that no wilderness
areas should be established in Boundary Cou*ty except for
the Salmo-Priest area West of the wild and scenic river
corridor of the Priest River. (Long Canyon sqould be a
special management area for backpacking trail connection
from the Kootenai River to the Selkirk-Crest while providing
other uses running the· gamut of all multiple uses.
.. '• ..
~
t
' !
' l,.
'
i·
1
L
J;~
t ,;.,
t ~
I
!
!· I
1
I
i ·1
i
i
r
f i
t ~-
I ·1
t:
i
Page 2
July 2, 1993
TASK FORCE REPORT:
1. "GENERIC SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA PRESCRIPTIONS"
A & B. We have grave concern with the phrase "in
accordance with applicable laws, rules and regulations
applicable to the State of Idaho and the National Forest
System, including the goals, objectives, and standards in
the appropriate For'e:S't Plan." We believe the phraseology
will, in effect, make any legislation meaningless. We urge
.that the Bill have priority over existing laws, regu],ations,
etc. except for limited, stated specific exceptions.
C & D. We note the report calls
would like to suggest the addition
entitled "Community Stability/Community
Economic Preservation":
"Management Objective• options:
phasis for the (area name) shall be:
for categories. We
of another cat~gory
Custom, Culture and
The management em-
"to provide means to maintain the existing com­munity
economic stability of localities within the
Ranger District"
* "to protect the custom and culture of the
people residing within the Ranger District"
* "to maintain, at not less than the current
level, in lieu of tax funds and other federal
funding"
* "to provide maximum public use"
* "to provide for management so as to provide for
sustainable growth and yield, and the production
of commercially valuable wood products on lands
suitable for timber production to ensure economic
preservation."
.'1
,.· '
t,
%:.
:'
"
.,,
l
I
)
t
! I
I
r
I
Page 3
July 2, 1993
•prescription• options: In meeting the provisions of this
paragraph, the Secretary shall:
* "Provide minimal habitat for threatened and
endangered species to the extent required form
time to time by action taken under the specific
provisions of the Endangered Species Act. Pro­vided
that the endangered species act shall not
apply if the specie is not in danger pf ex~inction
worldwide; and, provided recovery pl:ans will not
be implemented unless they provige no economic
loss to the local communities."
* Regularly consult with elected officials of
government subdivisions in the county in which the
management area is located in regard to:
1. Implementation of programs to carry out the
management objectives; and,
2. Providing documentation that the management
objectives have not been changed by regula­tions,
rules and/or redefinition of termino­logy
E. We suggest that the following proposals be added to
each of the nine categories listed under "Generic Prescrip­tions":
1. Add to "Management Objective" options:
"to provide means to maintain the existing com­munity
economic stability of. localities within the
Ranger District" ..
* "to protect the custom.and culture of the
people residing within the Ranger District"
* "to maintain, at not less than the current
level, in lieu of tax funds and other federal
funding"
.....
''i
Page 4
July 2, 1993
* "to provide maximum general public use"·
* "to provide for management so as to provide for
sustainable growth and yield, and the production
of commercially valuable wood products on lands
suitable for timber production."
2. Add to "Prescription" Options:
* "Provide minimal habitat for threatened and
endangered species to the extent required form
time to time by a.ction taken under the specific
provisions of the Endangered Species Act. Pro­vided
that the endangered spec.ies act shall not
apply if the specie is not in danger·of extinction
worldwide; and, provided recovery plans will not
be implemented unless they provide no economic
loss to the local cornnunities, or
* Regularly consult with elected officials of
government subdivisions in the county in which the
management area is located in regard to:
1. Implementation .of programs to carry out the
management objectives; and,
2. Providing documentation that the man~gement
objectives have not been changed by regula­tions,
rules and/or redefinition of termino­logy
F. We suggest that the following proposals. be added to
category Its· - II Unro'aded Recreations II :
1. "Management Objective" Options:
•
* "to provide winter snowmobile use"
* "to allow the use of machinery in emergency
situations to control'fire and insect "infestation" ·.
Page 5
July 2, 1993
yours,
Ron Smi h, C irman
Boundary County Board of
Commissioners
W-I Forest Products
cc: Norm Arsenault
Steve judy
Jeff Bell
Andy Brunelle
Stephen P. Mealy
Mike King
Jerry Conley
Doug Tims
Joe Hinson
Dennis Baird
Stan Hamilton
•
Sims, ayor
City of Bonners Ferry
~JldleUJ
Randall W. Day, Boundary
County Prosecutor
Peter B. Wilson, Bonners
Ferry City Attorney
Opening:
Statement of
the Honorable Larry LaRocco
Idaho Wilderness Town Meetings
December 14-16, 1992
I want to thank everyone in attendance -- especi~lly those
who have traveled from out of town -- for taking time on a cold
night to participate in this forum on an issue Idahoans would
like to have settled -- how to manage Idaho's remaining 9 million
acres of roadless lands. For a dozen years this has remained
Idaho's most important unresolved natural resources issue.
Reason for having town meetings:
This is the first of four town meetings I will be holding
this week across Idaho to solicit recommendations from the public
on how best to proceed. More town meetings may be scheduled. As
with my other town meetings, my first step is to hear from the
people of Idaho. I am here to listen for new ideas -- new ways
to resolve this issue. I believe that, from the very start, the
process should be open to Idahoans who are directly affected by
the lands around them. I would also like to share some of my own
ideas and concerns about management of Idaho's roadless areas.
How town meeting will proceed:
This is how I would like to proceed tonight. I have
assembled knowledgeable people from state and federal resource
agencies who will provide a history of the roadless lands issue
in Idaho as a framework for tonight's meeting. Each agency will
take no more than 15 minutes to give a brief overview before we
hear from citizens. The panel members will then be available to
answer questions that arise from testimony throughout the
evening.
First, Dave Wright, Supervisor of the Panhandle National
Forest and Win Green, Supervisor of the Clearwater National
Forest will present a quick view of the history of Idaho's
roadless lands and help us visualize past wilderness proposals.
Then, Roy Heberger, Assistant Field Supervisor of the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service Idaho Field Office and Dave Ortmann,
Regional Supervisor for Idaho Fish and Game will speak to the
issue of wildlife habitat and their agency's role.
I would also like to recognize Ted Graf, Natural Resource
Specialist for the Bureau of Land Management, who is in the
audience and available to answer any questions about lands
managed by the Bureau. I would like to introduGe my staff, too.
Jeff and Kristi Bell of the Coeur d'Alene District Office,
Charley Mosier of my Lewiston office, Robin Hartmann of my
Washington staff, as well as Joe Zimmer, a consultant whose
skills in natural resource and conflict resolution will help keep
this process moving. I want to extend my appreciate to Norm
Arseneau and Missy Guisto of Senator Craig's staff for attending
these town meetings. And would like to thank North Idaho College
for providing this room and CableVision for their coverage of
this meeting.
Following the agencies' presentations, I will call on
citizens from the audience who have signed cards as they entered
tonight, and will try to begin with people who are here
representing groups and those who are from out of town and have a
long distance to drive tonight.
Anyone who would like to step up to the microphone will be
given two to three minutes for verbal comments. I will stay as
long as anyone wants to speak. I would also like to encourage
you to put your ideas into writing and send them to my office as
a supplement to, or in substitution for oral testimony.
And finally, I want to clarify that this is not a numbers
game. We will not be keeping track of the number of those
testifying one way or another. My hope is that we will hear many
different viewpoints and new ideas.
Why address this issue:
Idaho has over 12 million acres of roadless National Forest
land, more than any state but Alaska. From 1964 to 1980, the
allocation of some 4 million acres, or 30 percent of it, was
settled. In five separate bills, Congress designated five
wilderness areas: the Selway-Bitterroot, Hells Canyon, Sawtooth,
Gospel-Hump, and the Frank Church River of No Return. My former
boss, the late Senator Frank Church sought a consensus for each
area which was then enacted into law.
When I decided to work on the roadless lands issue during
the 103rd Congress, many people asked, "Why?". There are a
number of reasons, but utmost in my mind is that Idahoans deserve
certainty, stability and sustainability when it comes to
management of our nation's forests, and I believe resolving the
roadless lands issue will take us a big step toward that
certainty.
I think it is important that the students attending High
School in St. Maries know if jobs will be available in the forest
industry. And that recreators from Moscow know with certainty
that their favorite wild places will be there to visit. And that
residents of Coeur d'Alene are assured of the water quality in
their streams and lakes.
The indecision on the roadless area question is unfair to
the many timber communities in Idaho, to the industries in the
state including timber, tourism and outfitting.
Today, when many people are questioning whether Idaho's
national forests can simultaneously·meet timber targets while
obeying environmental laws, we clearly need a decision on Idaho's
roadless lands.
Furthermore, I believe there is a real need for Idaho
leadership on the roadless issue in Washington D.C. Although
many Americans enjoy the federal lands in our great State, we do
not want a Senator from Arkansas or a representative from
Pennsylvania writing Idaho's wilderness bill, but that is likely
what we will get unless Idahoans get back in the game. As the
national interest builds in management of Idaho's wild lands, the
debate will shift more and more to Congress unless Idahoans are
able to work for a compromise.
LL's thoughts on addressing this issue:
As I work for a r~solution to this issue, I want to keep
options open, and I plan to consult widely. But, at the outset,
there are some ideas I would like to share with you:
I believe we are not going to have "just" a wilderness bill
in Idaho. It will have to be a wilderness and forest management
bill. With hard work and good luck it should be possible to
craft a bill that makes sound ecological and economic sense.
I believe one of the keys to a successful bill lies in new
ideas, and throughout these town meetings I will be keeping my
ears open for suggestions on innovative management designations
and measures to help overall forest productivity.
I believe acreage is not the place to start. By talking
acres, we are just asking for polarization.
I believe we need to keep a balance. I personally know and
value many wild places in Idaho, but I have never made a secret
of my view that an Idaho with full employment is a better place
than with high unemployment. If jobs are assured and the lines
make decent sense on the ground, I believe we can make this fly.
Past efforts:
I realize there have been many commendable attempts during
the last decade to solve the roadless issue in Idaho. Although
some have been discouraged by the lack of resolution, I want to
keep working for a solution. After all, even the original
wilderness bill took eight years to emerge from Congress.
The first wilderness bill was introduced in 1956 by Senator
Hubert Humphery and nine other senators, including my former boss
and mentor, the late Senator Frank Church. At that time, both
Forest Service and the National Park Service opposed the
legislation. The Forest Service argued it was not urgently
needed. During the following eight years, 65 different wilderness
bills were introduced, and 18 hearings were held across the
nation. But because of the tenacity of those who believed in the
goal, in the end, the House passed the final version 373 to one;
the Senate, by a margin of 73 to 12.
I believe much work has already been accomplished through
past efforts to resolve the fate of the 9.3 million roadless
acres in Idaho's national forests.
building a fair wilderness package
four past efforts.
Forest Plans:
As I see it, information for
is available from at least
First, each national forest in Idaho has a completed forest
plan, which includes maps and descriptions for wilderness
recommendations. Altho4gh these recommendations were made a few
years ago, they were developed with public participation and
could be a good place to start current discussion.
Andrus/McClure:
Second, much could be learned from the compromise wilderness
bill developed by Governor Cecil Andrus and former Senator James
McClure. Although not successful, the Andrus/McClure effort
started a tradition of bipartisanship for resolving Idaho land
use issues that should remain the goal for future efforts.
Idaho Wilderness Act:
Third, in 1987, and again in 1989, the Idaho Wilderness Act
was introduced as a four-million-acre package for Idaho, which
was endorsed by the Idaho conservation community.
Mediation effort:
And fourth, the State-funded wilderness mediation effort,
even though npt ultimately successful, laid some groundwork for
resolving this issue. Idahoans worked together for nearly two
years to understand each others needs and to look for areas of
agreement. Now we need to build on those efforts with
legislation that provides some certainty for all interests.
Conclusion:
I look forward to hearing new ideas tonight and to working
with Idahoans in the upcoming months to make this a good bill for
our State. With your help I will be able to gather public
comment this month, and hit the ground running in the 103rd
Congress.
The clock is ticking toward the end of March when I have
promised to introduce legislation. I stand ready to make this my
top priority in 1993, and plan to get on the ground to visit the
areas we hear about tonight and hold a Congressional field
hearings in Idaho.
To bring certainty, stability and sustainability to our
Idaho communities will require cooperation and compromise.
Idaho's citizens and Congressional delegation must pull together
if we are to succeed. I believe Idahoan's would like to see the
roadless issue settled. I welcome your support in this goal.
WILDERNESS AND ROADLESS LANDS
Chronology of Events
Administrative actions:
1926 Kneipp inventory. Forest Service begins appraising the
extent of wilderness remaining on national forests
through a national inventory of all areas greater than
230,400 acres.
1927
1929
1939
Chief of Forest Service announces plans to prohibit
road building and other commercial development that
would impair the character of an area that otherwise
possessed wilderness quality.
L-20 Regulations promulgated by the Forest Service.
The first systematic program of wilderness
preservation, intended as interim protection, which
listed permitted and prohibited uses. There were 72
primitive areas totalling 13,482,421 acres in 10
~estern states. Management plans allowed road
construction in 15 areas, grazing in 62, logging in 59.
Only four primitive areas totaling 297,221 acres
absolutely excluded logging, grazing, and roads.
U-Regulations promulgated by Forest Service due to
·dissatisfaction with looseness of the L-20 Regulations.
Intended as permanent protection. Three land use
designations were recognized: U-1 established
wilderness areas - tracts of land not less than 100,000
acres. Only the Secretary of Agriculture could
designate, modify or eliminate wilderness areas. U-2
established wild areas - tracts of land between 5,000
and 100,00 acres. Could be established, modified or
eliminated by Chief of the Forest Service. Both U-1 and
U-2 Regulations prohibited timber cutting, road
construction, and mechanized access. Grazing, water
resource development, and mining were allowed. U-3
established roadless areas where timber cutting, roads,
and other modifications were permissible if provide for
in area management plans. Areas greater than 100,000
acres could be established and modified'by the
Secretary of Agriculture; less than 100,000 acres
established and modified by Chief of the Forest
Service.
Legislative actions:
1956 Introduction of first wilderness bill by Hubert
Humphery and nine other Senators including the
Honorable Frank Church of Idaho.
1960 Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act enacted. Stated that,
"the establishment and maintenance of areas of
wilderness are consistent with the purpose and
provisions of this act." Also defined multiple-uses as
allowing "that some land will be used for less than all
the resources."
1964 Wilderness Act enacted -- Created the National
Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS), defined
wilderness, includ~d administratively designated Forest
Service wilderness, wild and canoe areas as instant
wilderness, established criteria for adding to the
system, provided general guidelines on how to manage
wilderness and reserved to Congress the authority to
classify new wilderness into the NWPS. Instructed
Secretary of Agriculture to, within 10 years review all
USFS primitive areas for their suitability as
wilderness and make report of findings to president.
1970
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1976
1977
Established wilqerness established in Idaho:
Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness, 1,239,840 acres in ID/MT.
Establishment of Craters of the Moon National
Wilderness Area within Craters of the Moon National
Monument, 43,243 acres.
Establishment of Sawtboth National Recreation Area and
designation of the Sawtooth Wilderness Area. 217,100
acres.
Forest Service releases the Final Environmental Impact
Statement on roadless area revi,ew ("RARE I") which
recommended protection and wilderness study for 274
areas in the nation.
Enactment of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable
Resources Planning Act (RPA).
Establishment of Hells Canyon National Recreation Area
including the Hells Canyon Wilderness. 192,200 acres.
Enactment of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA).
Enactment of Federal Land Policy and Management Act
(FLPMA). Provided guidelines for all p1anning and
administration of federal public lands (managed by
Bureau of Land Management). Directed the Secretary of
Interior to study public BLM lands for wilderness
suitability. Recommendations could be designated
wilderness by Congress. Report due to president in 15
years.
Forest Service begins RARE II, a more comprehensive
review of wilderness suitability of national forest
roadless areas. Broader in scope than "RARE I" and
carried out as an accelerated part of the forest
planning process mandated by the RPA and NFMA.
' 1978 Enactment of Endangered American Wilderness
Designated Gospel Hump Wilderness in Idaho.
acres.
Act.
206,000
Jan 1979 Forest Service issues the Roadless Area Review and
Evaluation (RARE II) with wilderness area
reeommendations for Congr~ss.
Jul 1979 State of California sued the Forest Service, claiming
that the RARE II analysis did not meet the re,qu:i.rements
of NEPA for 47 non-wilderness areas in the state.
1980 U.S. district court judge held that RARE II violated
NEPA by not containing an adequate, site-specific
analysis of the wilderness values foregone in
recommending that the areas be available for
development.
1983 Assistant Sec. of Agriculture directed the Forest.
Service to reevaluate all RARE II recommendations
within the ongoing forest planning process.
1980 Enactment of the Central ~daho Wilderness Act.
Designated River of No Return Wild~rness. Added
Magrueder Corridor to existing Selway-Bitterroot
Wilderness. River of No Return 2,239,000 acres.
Selway Bitterroot addition 105,600 acres.
1984 Renamed "The River of No R~turn Wilderness" as "Frank
Church-River of No Return Wilderness."
Idaho wilderness efforts:
1984 Congressman Larry Craig introduces "Idaho Forest
Management Act of 1984" with 526,000 acres.
DATE? Forest Plans completed proposing 1.3 million acres of
additional wilderness for Idaho.
1990 Governor Cecil Andrus and former Senator James McClure
introduce the "Idaho Fo):"est Management Act of 1988"
which proposed 1.4 million acres as wilderness and an
additional 611,000 acres of other special management
areas.
1984-1992 Congressman Peter Kostmayer introduces Idaho wilderness
proposals calling for about 3,900,000 acres.
1990-1992 Idaho legislature funds wilderness mediation efforts.
199~ BLM releases Idaho wilderness proposal.
(in Million Board Feet)
FY92
Forest ASQ target offered harvested
Clearwater 173 75 24.5 116
Panhandle 280 202 127.2 235
Nez Perce 108 77 49.8 81
Region 1, Idaho 561 354 201.5 432
88-92 Total
Forest target offered harvested
Clearwater 711 589.4 626.4
Panhandle 1222.6 1073.4 1262.6
Nez Perce 492 449.7 419.6
Region 1, Idaho 2425.6 2308.6 2308.6
11-1')-')2 11:09AM FROMCONG. LAROCCOBOISE PC 1/01
Congressman
LARRY LaROCCO
1st Congressional District - Idaho
Washington, D.C. 202·22~-6611
Boise 208-343-4211
Lewiston 208-746-6694 NEWS RELEASE
Coeur d'Alene 208-667-2110
Contact: Tom Knappenberger (208) 343-4211
NovamDer 19, 1992
COJqBIIBHAH LA8QOOO TO BOLD QICIMBIB TQWN MEITtNgj QH WlLDIRNISS
BOISE - Idaho First District Congressman Larry LaRocco
announced today that he will hold three Town Meetings in the
Fir&t Diatriot in early December to hear public opinion on
resolving Idaho's Wilderness issue. .
"For a dozen years this has remained Idaho's most important
unreaolvad natural resources issue," Congressman LaRocco said.
"As with health care and the Persian Gulf war, my tirat atep will
be to hear from the people of Idaho,"
The Town Meetings are scheduled for:
Coeur d'Alene, Monday, Dec. 14, 7 p.m., in the Bonner Room
at North Idaho College;
Lewiston, Tuesday, Dec. 15, 7 p.m., in the Auditorium of
Lewia Clark state College;
Boise', Wednesdl!ly, Dec •. 16, 7 p.m., in the Auditorium of the
Boise Public Library.
,{\
The public is inv+~ed to attend and participate in the open
forum Town Meeting&.
"Clearly Idaho' a nine-million acres of roacUess ll!lnd need to
have decisions on Which areas will remain wild and which areas
will be allocated to other uaas," Congressman LaRocco al!lid.
"Idaho deserves certainty, stability and sustainabilit:y when it
comes to the manaqement ot our national forests. Nine million
acres of land without a decision simply leads to continued
uncertainty."
Congressman LaRocco is a member ot the House Interior and
Insular Affairs Committee. He plana to have Wilderness
legi•lation introduced in the House by the end ot March.
I
fl1040._ [Z~o
I #
/& ~ ()t!·} .9ts~;? .fnl::·•-: t~·LJ.~A~:. ~{!'"" - ~·- J~t.'H··
t- ,~

i'.J>• • ;.< ro: ··· -sf.,,,~ .•'·!'!U_"·fb J,;,tt!iO .... ~·~~ ... ~ .... f::IJJ~.,.,~ D.-I r. .1.: .. 1:':·-·-d~ '-•~,t·.-{fh.l .-.: ;i. ••
_-· i _(-. '!1 · · -~ · ' ..... J •• !.~,1--f~,,, 1'-.t\/P{Jf ~rit.., ,_. ~ .. '--.1, • • , • r • n....... ,- .... -~ .~. .. • ..r. - • • 1· .•. ," '1) ', 1 ,;_~ • , • • -~ •-1 1• •• ,~ Wilderness issue. Howeyer, the bill you propo~e .doesn't work. It is not
citiZen$~'Idah~ ¢hllnot let a few .people domiflate'the an&catioil:'Jii'oc~ss -~a beii~~e their' ..
inte;rtionS.\VerJ:good but you niiss~d the mark. . ;-,;,j;.:J~ ;,) .; n·.•rsTh:o~soriie or the proposed wilderness ~adit:ions wilt eliminate those historic·,_;, -~.; '" ·._ ·.
"·-~7-...~.v F' ~ ,•'•"• ~~" •.-.: >.;rP-:· '-, >;:;11/- '· ·.&Ji¢.;;i,"A'-·'," _-_,._,··'r=_ • ._. ,. h . ""'" - .. "- :£_ _... ""~ ~"'~{. '!··~ fr.: - . • • , ' . . . "' ., '"' ·-\"'' ,__- . -..•h..r, .• _•.._~_. ' ' ' '-..." ~· ..... Ji.l }!}J" .t - ."(' ,-
:opQOi-tunjti~&,ttcilli.teYO?ar~as:.~.'\~1~~~;~;:~-~:~~f .. :;,., ~~#2:~: 1.!1 :~11~if~ .. ~-~)~: :\i~i) ·Jf·:·;t: ____ !1 _ · ·.a~ ~e-er; :Is? .lleH 11lJ aJis4 ;z;9 i 2m:fr1 .. ". ~mr"·- J .~:: ·:c
~~~r~~~~~~1t!1~~lJ~$~:~~-~r{l(~:jif,~)~:~~ -~ l ·;:-.... .$'' -ll~9,. ;-toq-:!J2 :y...-eJ .:LH'n-9mo;~a:;qua zHs~ t;e,oq _ l fo-od;? ~:u ~v ·:'WJ .:-·t ·e , ..
7oi. .. .._ ·'- -~ , •• tt •..• ~ ...... -- •.. J s.-.. - --_ .. -·~ .. m- •.. -......... - .t ·----•...: -~•;--•~· .. --:;·! c~t hub~ :1.... ..., ' b , •
. Vl·JJ, n;r,~,_, 8:0 •, :), .•. ';:)11 1S .m .... 1 ~.: ~•T"j: t.r: ,?•trr1•:t nJf~...:". _,. ..
ld.llU::i Where recreation \md associated resources' can o~'feafured. Where trails can be
· .,._, .. to experience nature, camping, fishing~and ~~Ynhi ~dllie::~':'where·, ,
,,..~_,...\ .~"'-J' l v-:~ l'"~~f1'i. • •. , : • bstacles to rmgrating sah
-----sites CC!ll bebardeneifto-aCCOmmQaatehurrian Use' With 'i>'C'•.
art equipment and groomed to accommodate .winter uses. There
~, . .., ~, ~- 'I' .. --~ "'il'ffiJ ~~ ~ -~- 'If,.;~--.
' ••c "- J,1. : __~ -,_,__' -"~' . . ~ ~'-ii- .~ . ' '
~ ' . .
~ , ,;-~-"' .. f A ?-"-if"'~Ll
'
'J·".r-.irnon ;::'bc~h.h:. ... ..-;___. f·J·-~~--
·;.--:.::i '3-rU 1o ·:"),j ·: • t ·-·~i:-J ·.
.:o: ,,22!' ·'
•Gem Motorcycle Ouh .c .;, hnrhv, .\fontana mill. Thus, this decision confirms the
non-wi!Uenwss mtiltiplc-ll."C srattts of the following areas or portions
of areas which are not being designated as wilderness by this Act:
R1t1 II Estimthd • .,.u [Jtlmt!td
Atu n1m1 "" No. tcruu Atn n1tn1 ''"No. ICIUII
;~~r.cr'.t~~~ _c_I_r~~~~ _I_•_c_~>: :::.: .. :: 01921 ~s. 'C¥1 Plltltn ..... ...................... 04S08 II, 0)5
01&41 26. •oo Ott\ Ctttlr. ....................... """' 21. 170
Mudow Ctnlr. Wnt ............... CI&H 9~, JIJO hut Clttlr. .... .................. 04510 1!,710
Mudo..- Crnlr. btl• ......... ..... DialS 91, 700 Prrrttu Ctttlr. ........ ............ 04511
Rackclin Ctdnty . ................. 0\U\ 33,000 T ulot Mount tin .................. 04502 d',·I 10550
Middlt Fork hct ....... .......... 018'2 II, 200 Ctrnn Cutlr. ........ ............. (4202 71, 0'30
Clttr C11tlr. .. .................... OIIJU 26. 700 Sulphur Crttlr. (M) ................ 14066 61, ]20
lleiiJ Mount1in .... ............... 01857 "'" Spr•nr B11in, ......... ........... O.C21!
Silnr Cruk·PIIol M:nab ............ 018'9 )6, 100 Squtw Crttlr. ........ ............. 04217 I06'·,1 4S020
Hortl'l Fork Slllt Crttlr. ............ omo u. 700 Crt,lock ......................... 04211 II. 870
Lilllt Sttlt Crttll ..... ............ 01!51 '· 200 NJcolnn lflcl1t .. , ... ............. G-C501 7, 710
Jol'ln Oar ........................ OIIJS2 10,000 Alltn Mounll•n ................... Q.t946 &6, 670
Enr Pulhtr Crnk ............... (4505 JO, 469 Alltn MouniJin, ....... ........... LIYAC 111. 100
Do .......................... 51504 14, 001 Sto"h Mounltln .. , . ............... ll BAD so. •oo
JUfflno ........ ................. 04506 Jl, 170 Nort Bl~ Holt .................... AIOOI 1. aoo
Haysltclr. Mountun ........ ....... 04507 12, )00 St1,.11 B•"tttOOI. ... , .. .......... AI BAA 611, •CO
• Thit cltchioll clirecb lht tdmlnhflllion tnd lht Fornt :Servict to""'"" lhtir Apr, 16, 197!, rKOmmtnclt!lon lhtt 1
portro11 ol tht Mudow C11elr. dtailllrt 111d lht Upper llunni11r Cruk tnd tlpptr Btrrlmin Crttlr. drti"'•" should bt
.. rldtr,en. Both lht Houu •ncltl'ltStnalt hnre caulully tumlntcl!ht tdmillistrtholl'l rt-eommtndttion fhtl 11'1t Muelo•
Ctulr. Eurunit (01145) bt cltlirntltd IJ wildunus tnd htwt drltrmlntd lhttlhiJ tru lhould IIOillt duJ rnt!td .. ildtrnus
but should bt mtntrt4 fat 11111 other thtn '"lcletntn. for 1 cltltiltcl discussion ol thi1 trtt, ut S. lrtpl 96""14, p. 10
Tho rondless nrens listed above have been thoroughly cnmined by
tho Congress. They nrc not being designated wilderness by this legis·
lntion and will remain subject to sustained-yield, multiple-use manage­mont
under the st.atutes nnu regulations generally applicable to all
non-wildcrncs.~ Nntionnl Forest Systemlnnds. The timber resources on
these unclassified lnnds shall be included, as appropriate, in the nonnal
timber management planning process, in the calculation of tho poten·
tial yield (allowable sale quantity) and nllo"·able timber harvest
levels for tho appropriate_ national forests. ·
JThn roadleou nr"n• we!'lt or theo Sallnnn Rt,·eor on the "Nezpf'r"" Natlnn11t Fnrl'at bf'nr no
I!Hrl"'•lr: relatlnn"lllp to the nrf'a eoY"erc:-d by the eonfrrt•e'a tlellbeoratlona on lhla bill. In
(lnrUeuiAr, tho:
~ . :! I. i
n~. . " ·- j·:,- ~- ?~:r .. ,:_~---~~-'-~~~::'~'.
~ ~
Nez Perce National Forest Plan
R~cord of De~i_sion -
.. v -~
·- '
·' - ,• i.
..G ,I !AHGEVUE . -
-
•• • I
•• I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Wilderness and directed the Forest Service to develop a multiple-use plan to guide the
development of three specific areas referred to as the 'Gospel-Hump Multipurpose Re­source
Development Area·. Refer to Chapter I, Section D, •special Planning Requirements•
in the Forest Plan for further information on the multipurpose resource development areas.
The Forest Plan meets this direction and provides specific management direction for these
areas in Chapter IV, •Geographic Display Areas• .
Central Idaho Wilderness Act of 1980
In the Central Idaho Wilderness Act of 1980 (CIWA) (PL 96-312), the East Meadow Creek
area, along with twelve other roadless areas, was evaluated for wilderness and
non-wilderness uses. One of the purposes of the aet stated in Section 2.(b)(2) was 'to end
the controversy over which lands within the central Idaho region will be designated wil­derness
- thereby assuring that certain adjacent lands better suited for multiple uses other
than wilderness will be managed by the Forest Service under existing laws and applicable
land management plans.•
The Conference Report for the committee of conference for the CIWA states, relative to the
Meadow Creek East area and the other areas considered but not designated wilderness,
that these areas are available for multiple-use management and provides that the uses are
to be determined through Forest Planning in accordance with the National Forest Man­agement
Act of 1976:
'The roadless areas listed above have been examined by the Congress. They are not
being designated wilderness by this legislation and will remain subject to sus­tained-
yield, multiple-use management under the statutes and regulations generally
applicable to all non-wilderness National Forest System lands. The timber resources
on these unclassified lands shall be included, as appropriate, in the normal timber
management planning process, in the calcufation of the potential yield (allowable sale
quantity) and allowable timber harvest levels for the appropriate national forests.
'Of course, the non-wilderness multiple-use status of these lands resulting from this
decision does not imply that they are to receive any less careful management in the
fU1ure. The National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) was designed to assure
careful and judicious planning for all national forests. The regulations which were
promulgated by the Secretary of Agriculture pursuant to Section 6 of that Act (36
CFR 219 ... ) will help make certain that these lands are properly managed under
principles of wise forest stewardship.•
(Conference Report No. 96-1126, pages 11 and 12).
believe that the Forest Plan addresses this expression of intent by the Congressional
committees through the Forest Planning process conducted in accordance with the Na­tional
Forest Management Act of 1976 (36 CFR 219) and that the Forest Plan establishes the
management direction for these areas in compliance with this mandate.
In addition to the areas identified by the CIWA, other existing roadless areas were also
evaluated in Forest Planning.
Roadless Areas
Management decisions for the roadless areas (503, 162 acres) on the Forest include:
7
• No land will be recommended as additions to the present wilderness acreage on the
Forest.
• 140,275 acres will not be suited for timber production. This includes parts of two areas that
will be managed for semiprimitive recreation and protection of cultural resources. These are
parts of Rapid River (19,343 acres) and Silver Creek-Pilot Knob (13,300 acres). Refer to
Management Area 11, Chapter Ill in the Forest Plan for a complete discussion of the goals
and standards for these areas.
• Portions of the remaining areas (302,036 acres) are included in the suitable timber base.
·The entire West Meadow Creek roadless area remains in the timber suitable land base. li is
my decision to make this area, along with the remaining suitable land base, available for
road construction and timber harvesting as needed to rJ]eet Forest Plan goals· and objec­tives.
Entry into this area will be a Forest Supervisor decision during Forest Plan im­plementation.
· Through the Forest Planning process, I have carefully considered nonwilderness mul­tiple-
use management including.timber harvesting for East Meadow Creek. At this time, I do
not believe we have adequate information to protect the sensitive watersheds and anad·
romous fisheries that exist in the area. However, I believe that there are opportunities to
develop and use the timber resources on 60,851 acres of tentatively suitable land.
This area will be available for a wide range of multiple-use activities including mineral
exploration and development. I have decided to exclude this area from the suitable land
base and the calculations of ASQ so that we can, through further study based on existing
management practices, gain a better understanding of the effectiveness of the proposed
vegetative management activities and road building as carried out under the principles of
wise stewardship. Under this plan, no capital investments will be made. Adequate funding
will be programmed to insure that the necessary studies are accomplished and the data
evaluated before any such activities occur in the area. This information is, in my opinion,
necessary before a sound decision can be reached on timber suitability and scheduling of
activities.
My intent is to manage this area for nonwi!derness multiple-use options and insure sufficient
protection of the sensitive water and fisheries resources of the area. This decision provides
for making appropriate additions to the suitable land base and the ASQ based on further
analysis with plan amendment procedures and full public involvement.
Anadromous Fish Habitat
Anadromous fish habitat will be managed to achieve 87 percent of its potential. This will be
achieved by managing each drainage to an established fish and water quality objective (see
Appendix A of the Forest Plan) and implementing 4,000 acres of direct fish habitat _im·
provements during the Plan period. An analysis will be completed to provide the details on
the problems with each stream that is currently below the stated habitat objective, the type
of habitat improvement that is needed in each stream, and which streams will receive
improvements first.
8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•• •• •• •
• •
•
I
I
I
I
I
• •
•
• I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
An opportunity exists to add 60,851 suitable acres during the Plan period. The potential
increase in the allowable sale quantity for the Plan period from this area is 20 million board feet.
This land is located in East Meadow Creek.
Maintenance and improvement of existing anadromous fish habitat is achievable by designing
and scheduling management activtties, primarily road construction, to control the amount of
sediment these activities produce.
During the review of the Proposed Forest Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement, it
was discovered that some of the Nez Perce fish/water quality objectives were lower than the
idaho Department of Fish and Game's objectives i!S stated in their 'Anadromous Fisheries
Management Plan, 1985-1990'. An initial analysis showed that simply raising the objectives in
the affected drainages would reduce timber harvest throughout the Forest to 880 million board
teet over the Plan period. However, additional analysis showed that the timber harvest could
be maintained while meeting Fish and Game Department objectives by increasing measures
to reduce sediment in 23 key drainages. Sediment mttigation practices are discussed on
pages 82-84, Chapter IV in EIS.
Two basic ways to manage timber stands on the Nez Perce National Forest are even-aged and
uneven-aged. This was the subject of considerable public comment.
In determining the appropriate silvicultural systems, I considered three groups of factors .
The first group considered was the major vegetative types found on the Forest and common
individual stand condttions. The four major vegetative types found on the Forest are mixed
conifer, Ponderosa pine-Rocky Mountain Douglas fir, Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir, and
lodgepole pine. State-of-the-art silvicunural information indicates that either even-aged or
uneven-aged management can be used on any of these vegetative types; however, individual
stand condttions are critical to the decision. (>ilviculiural Systems for Mapr Forest Types of the
United States, Agricu~ural Handbook 455, USDA Forest Service.) Stands with decadent over­story
vegetation and sparse regeneration, and stands at high risk to insect disease epidemics
are common on the Forest. Wtth even-aged systems, stands with a high percentage of
overmature, suppressed, or diseased trees can be rapidly regenerated into young, vigorous
stands. There is also more opportunity to control species and stocking to minimize future pest
problems.
The second group of factors I considered were the non-timber resource objectives and the
ways they are affected by silvicunural systems. Included were the amount of wildlife disturb­ance
due to logging and related activtties, the economical efficiency of timber harvesting and
transportation system, the impact on visual quality, the ability to meet riparian-dependent
resource needs, and the growth rate of regenerated stands.
Even-aged management maximizes the volume of timber per unit of road and enhances the
economics of harvesting. This is an important consideration in maintaining .water quality and
fish habttat without severely impacting timber harvest. Even-aged management, even though
it has a more immediate impact on wildlife than uneven-aged management, usually requires
only one to three harv~st entries during an 80 to 120 year rotation.
I did consider uneven-aged management for those areas where resource objectives can be
met by stand condttions created by harvest operations associated with selection harvest.
Uneven-aged management generally provides continuous tree cover, resuning in less appar­ent
visual change and hiding cover for some wildlife species; however, it also requires
19
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 5.--Roadless Areas Considered in
RARE II and the Forest Plan
Area Name RARE II 1986 Semlprim Wilderness
Acres Acres
Big Canyon 1/ . 16,500 0
Clear Creek 26,700 11,876
Dixie Sumit Nut Hill 17,746 11,943
Dixie Tai12/ 8,256 0
Gospei-Hump(Jersey-Jack) 56,780 54,321
John Day .10,000 14,991
Kelly Mountain 3/ 800 0
Klopton Cr.-Corral Cr. 1/ 23,520 0
Uck Pt. 8,006 8,006
Little Slate 9,200 19,568
Mallard 22,919 23,232
Meadow Creek
East Meadow 97,720 94,203
West Meadow 95,380 107,512
Middle Bargamin 12,600 0
Middle Fork Face 11,200 10,170
North Fork Slate 14,500 12,783
O'Hara-FaJis Cr. 25,326 25,326
Rackliff-Gedney
(Nez Perce NF portion) 53,000 55,483
Rapid River
(Nez Perce NF portion) 27,940 23,300
Salmon Face 9,300 9,414
Silver Cr.-Pilot Knob 35,729 21,034
V Included in Hell's Canyon NationaJ Recreation Area
2/ Included in Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness
3/ No longer meets criteria
Rec/Defer MA9
MA 11
94,203
19,343
13,300
Available for
Development
0
11,876
11,943
0
54,321
14,991
0
0
8,006
19,588
23,232
0
107,512
0
10,170
12,783
25,326
55,483
3,957
9,414
7.734
I believe that wilderness designation for these roadless areas would unnecessarily forgo
present and future options for mu~iple-use management.
A case-by-case evaluation of each roadless area indicated that due to inherent characteristics
such as geographic location, size, existing resources and resource potentials, some roadless
areas were more significant than others. The public also recognized these distinctions and
frequently mentioned specific roadless areas in their comments. As a result of this individual
area evaluation and public comments, I identified several key roadless areas. These key
roadless areas and my rationale for decisions for each follow:
East Meadow Creek
This area consists of 94,203 acres which contain both significant and sensnive resources.
Streams in this area contain some of the most significant anadromous fish habitat on the
Forest; this habnat will contribute to the recovery of wild populations of anadromous fish.
Approximately 12 percent of the biological potential, forest-wide (excluding wilderness), for
anadromous smo~ production comes from the streams wnhin this roadless area: The area also
contains an important winter range for elk.
23
' .
About 60,851 acres are considered tentatively suitable for timber production. The middle
elevation contains stands of ponderosa pine on southern and western exposures. Cedar is
present in the lower creek bottoms, and lodgepole pine and subalpine species prevail at the
higher elevations. There are no known threats of insects, or disease that will cause loss of
the timber potential, in the next decade. Most of the potentially valuable stands of timber
occur in scattered pockets on the lower slopes of the area. Due to landforms in the
drainages in the area, the commercially valuable stands can only be accessed from above.
Because of the remote location of this area in relation to existing transportation facilities, the
location of many of the valuable timber stands in lower elevations, and the inabil(ty to
access this timber from below, an excessive amount bf road construction would be nec­essary
to access potential timber sales. Steep slopes, fragile soils, and high fishery values,
require extensive mitigation measures to protect the fishery and water resources.
I have reviewed both the CIWA and the Congressional Reports related to this area. I believe
that my decision complies with the intent of these documents. As directed, considerations
for careful management of this area have led me to the conclusion that information is not
available at this point upon which to base a decision on suitability of timber production and
scheduling of activities. This conclusion was reached after an examination of concerns
raised by the public related to the compatibility of timber production with anadromous fish
habitat and soil and water quality protection in this area. I intend to strengthen existing
resource information and evaluate the adequacy of sediment mitigation measures before
reaching decisions on development of this area.
Maintenance and enhancement of habitat for the wild steelhead and salmon run in the
upper Clearwater River drainage is of prirriary importance. I am deferring timber production
until further analysis can determine whether and how these values can be protected.
Rackliff-Gedney
The Nez Perce portion of this area consists of 55,463 acres between the Lochsa and Selway
Rivers from their confluence eastward to the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderoess. Vegetation over
about 75 perqent of the area is largely a resutt of wildfires 50-70 years ago. Although trees
have regenerated on some sites, much of the area consists of extensive brush fields with
islands of unburned trees and snags.
While brush fields are a major supply of browse for big game, much of this vegetation has
grown too high to furnish quality browse, resulting in declining elk populations. Of the
remaining 25 percent of the area, approximately 20 percent (11 ,000 acres) is suitable timber
land with mature and overmature stands of timber. Approximately 5 percent (2,800 acres)
are located· along the higher ridges and are unsuitable for timber management.
My decision is to manage approximately 38,000 acres of brush fields in this area primarily
for the benefit of big game (Refer to Management Area 16, page 111-16, in the Forest Plan).
An active burning program will be implemented to improve elk winter range. I have also
decided that the remaining 11,000 acres of standing timber will be managed as suitable
timber land and will be developed in coordination with other resource objectives in the area.
Rapid River
The Nez Perce portion of this roadless area consists of 23,300 acres adjoining the Hells
Canyon Wilderness. This .area contains Rapid River, a national Wild and Scenic River.
24
..
...,
..
Jl
~
II
II
Ill
II
~·I
Jl
II
• Jl
Jl
II
Ill
Ill
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
A chinook salmon hatchery operated by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game is located
just outside of the Nez Perce National Forest boundary on the northeast side of the road less
area. This hatchery, built by the Idaho Power Company as compensation for fishery losses
resulting from the construction of the Hells Canyon Dam complex, uses water from Rapid
River.
The area is generally very steep, resulting in high potentials for erosion and mass soil
movement. Areas of active mass soil movements are evident throughout the area.
My decision is to manage 19,343 acres of this area with· no new road construction. These
acres encompass the Nez Perce portion of the roadless area that are in the Rapid River
Drainage. Based on soil and topographical features in the Rapid River drainage and the
resulting erosion hazards, I believe this is necessary to provide high-quality water to ensure
the successful operation of the Rapid River fish hatchery.
The remaining 3,957 acres will be managed for timber and other multiple uses as described
in Chapter Ill of the Forest Plan.
West Meadow Creek
This area consists of 107,512 acres to the west of Meadow Creek and is the largest roadless
area on the Forest. Much of the area is steep, especially on the middle and lower reaches of
Meadow Creek. Much of the upper Meadow Creek drainage burned in 1919 and is now
covered with 60-to 65-year-old, regenerated timber stands. Scattered pockets of older
stands of spruce and fir have escaped fire.
Of all of the roadless areas on the Forest, this area received the most public comment.
Many comments cited the high fishery and wildlife value as a reason for wanting this area
left roadless. Other comments supported the development of the area citing the need for an
adequate timber supply to assure that timber-related jobs would not be lost. Concerns were
also expressed about the impacts of development on big-game outfitters and guides who
operate in the area.
Senate Report 96-414 (to accompanyS. 2009), page 11, states:
• ... The Committee gave careful consideration to the future use of this area and
concurred with the Administration's RARE II recommendation that the area not be­come
wilderness. This area is close to the timer-dependent community of Elk City,
Idaho and the Committee agrees that this unit should be available to provide timber
which, in turn, provides jobs and a healthy economy in the small towns in Idaho
County.
As was the case with the east side of Meadow Creek, the western reaches of the
watershed contribute clean water to Meadow Creek which flows into the Selway
River. Thus, any development of this area should be done cautiously with the water
quality of Meadow Creek in mind. •
I considered the Congressional intent in developing management direction for this area.
The management prescription applied to the area west of Meadow Creek offers a
cost-efficient means of meeting Forest Plan goals and objectives over the planning horizon.
25
. '
This prescription includes the area in the suitable land base for timber harvest. The man­agement
objectives for nontimber resources in the area are not precluded by timber harvest
and road construction.
Resource values such as water quality, fish, wildlife, and recreation, will remain high.
Management standards and practices outlined in the Forest Plan can maintain or enhance
these other resource values in conjunction with timber harvest and development. Sediment
mitigation practices, restricting use of new roads, and careful placement of harvest units are
some of the steps that will assure that other resources are protected.
Increasing the timber values as a result of growth or market conditions will improve the
economic viability of sales in this area. Also, road ·access costs will tend to decline as the
primary road system is completed in adjacent- areas. The combination of these factors will
result in improved timber sale economics in West Meadow Creek.
Silver Creek-Pilot Knob
This area consists of 21,034 acres and includes the upper part of Silver Creek and several
small tributaries of Newsome Creek. The area is dominated by Pilot Rock and Pilot Knob, a
7,000-foot ridge in the center of the area that can be seen from any high point on the west
side of the Forest.
In the Proposed F crest Plan, 6 million board feet of timber were scheduled for harvest within
the roadless area boundary.
During the review period for the Proposed Forest Plan and Draft Environmental Impact
Statement, the Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee expressed concern for the protection
of important Indian cuttural and religious sites in the area. The committee requested that no
timber harvesting, road building, or any other land-disturbing activities be allowed to take
place adjacent or in close proximity to those sites. Members of my staff worked with Tribal
committee members to identify areas of specific concern.
As a result of this joint effort, my decision is to manage apprqximately 13,300 acres of this
area, in the upper part of Silver Creek, with no additional roads and no scheduled timber
harvests. This management will also be beneficial for fisheries, wildlife, and dispersed
recreation resources.
Mallard and Gospel-Hump
These two areas combined consist of 77,553 acres immediately above the Salmon River
Breaks. This is high, rolling, timbered country with meadows along some of the larger
creeks. The predominant timber type is lodgepole pine. There are also stands of ponderosa
pine and Douglas-fir adjacent to the boundary of the Frank Church - River of No Return
Wilderness.
Under the proposed Forest Plan, there were approximately 81 million board feet of timber
scheduled for harvest in these two areas.
During formal consultation on the proposed Forest Plan and Draft Environmental Impact
Statement, as required by the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service made 'conservation recommendations• for each of these areas. They fecommended
that timber harvesting and road construction be delayed in part of both roadless areas for
26
(.
United States
Department of
Agriculture
Forest Service
., -
Nez Perce National Forest Plan;,-,_~~,-/
·-
•
ROADLFSS AREA 1845 - MEADOW CREEK
201,715 Acres
This is the largest roadless area on the Nez Perce National Forest,
encompassing almost all of the Meadow Creek drainage. It joins the
Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness on the north and east, and is separated from the
Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness by a road on the south.
Area 1845 was evaluated in detail during previous wilderness studies as two
subareas, 1845C and 18450. That format is continued here. The wilderness
recommendations for Area 1845 in the alternatives are done by subareas, but in
at least one alternative both subareas are assigned to wilderness, and in at
least one other both are assigned to nonwilderness. Thus, the entire area is
considered for wilderness classification.
As a whole, this area contains nearly all features of the two adjacent
wildernesses except low-elevation river break country. Meadow Creek is one of
the largest streams in the Selway drainage, and it divides Area 1845 into two
nearly equal parts. The Creek runs north and south for approximately 15 miles,
then runs east and west for about 8 miles before turning north and south again
to its source. Thus, a full range of aspects, elevations, and vegetative
types is represented; and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation
are outstanding.
ROADLESS AREA 1845C -- Meadow Creek West
107,512 Acres
A. DESCRIPTION
Meadow Creek is a principal tributary of the Selway River which enters about a
mile above Selway Falls. Area 1845C is essentially the west side of the Meadow
Creek drainage, although a few small streams drain into American River, a
tributary of the South Fork of the Clearwater.
This area joins Headless Area 18450 on the east and is separated by a road
corridor from the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness on the south. The
western boundary is, for the most part, the divide that separates the Selway
and South Fork of the Clearwater drainages. Road access is by way of Road 443
on the north and west sides, and Roads 468 and 285 on the south.
The entire main stem of Meadow Creek above the junction with the East Fork is
included in this area. Elevations range from about 1,800 feet at the trailhead
on the northern boundary to 7,232 feet at Granite Peak. Slopes are steep,
mostly facing east and north. As is characteristic of north and east
exposures, vegetation in most parts of the area is dense, especially in the
stream bottoms. Pacific yew is common, and thick. The head of Meadow Creek is
open, however, with the meadows that give the Creek its name.
C-75
•• ••
•• ••
•
•
• "
~ . • •• I
• I
• I
Virtually all of the upper Meadow Creek drainage burried in 1919, and much of it
is now covered with thick reproduction. There are some stands of fir and
spruce on lands that escaped this and other fires. Lodgepole pine and
subalpine species are common at higher elevations.
Scenic areas include Anderson B~tte and Meadow Creek. Sensitive wildlife
occurring in the Area include gray wolves, elk, bald eagle, steelhead trout,
chinook salmon, and possibly grizzly bears. One of the key attractions of this
Area is the extremely high water quality of Meadow Creek. It is one of the
very few streams left on the Forest with very excellent water quality and a
productive anadromous fishery. Other special features are Green Mountain
Lookout which is one of the older lookout locations on the Forest, Horse Point
Lookout Site, Meadow Creek cabin, old sheep driveways, evidence of glaciation
in the upper Meadow-Fourmile area, Meadow Creek and Anderson Butte National
Recreation Trails, and the Nez Perce Trail.
Current uses include grazing, hiking, motorcycle riding, hunting, fishing,
I
I
I
I
I
I
backpacking, camping, horseback riding, snowmobiling, and sightseeing along the •
Montana Road. One outfitter operates in the Area.
Under 36 CFR 219.17, roadless areas evaluated in previous unit plans, but not
included in the last nationwide roadless area review and evaluation, must be
reconsidered for wilderness classification. Two such areas, 1228 and 1229,
share common boundaries with Area 1845C, and have been included in it.
B. CAPABILITY
This section describes the basic characteristics which make the Area
appropriate and valuable for wilderness regardless of the area's availability
or need.
1. Natural Integrity
Long-term ecological processes have been only slightly impacted in Area 1845C.
The area has a history of grazing. At one time, there were many sheep grazing
allotments in Areas 1845C and 18450. Stock driveways are shown on Forest maps
as early as 1911, and large sheep allotments first appeared on Forest maps in
1920. Most likely, they were both established before these maps came out.
Although the effects of past sheep grazing have largely vanished, the effects
of the stock driveways have not. They can be identified in the Meadow Creek
Area and in the adjoining Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness because they go almost
straight down one side of a hill and straight up the other side, and are
cleared to a width of 50 feet. Erosion has left its mark on these sites,
despite reconstruction of many of the driveways into graded trails.
Grazing today is much less extensive, concentrated mostly along the western
boundary and around the meadows in the head of Meadow Creek.
C-78
•• • I
• I
I
• I
I
••
For full document, please contact
Boise State University I Albertsons Library
Special Collections and Archives
1910 University Dr. Boise, ID 83725-1430
archives@boisestate.edu, 208-426-3958